Cover photo
Works at Unemployed
Attends Harvard Extension School
164 followers|232,890 views




Shared publicly  - 
Hello world!

‎Thursday, ‎August ‎30, ‎2012, ‏‎9:44:17 AM | OCEANEconomica Go to full article “The Essence of Freedom is Individuality – Ork Indivi Coor”

The 7th Learning is Schumpeter’s Legacy.

Schumpeter said (Adolph Bertram Drucker listened) one week before he passed , “I want to be remembered as having been the teacher who converted half-a-dozen brilliant students into first-rate economists. One does not make a difference, unless it is a difference in the lives of People.” This quote from a man who once declared himself Europe’s greatest lover of beautiful women…and reportedly wore a cape. So cool.

Let the Playas Play.

Daniel Raymond (1786-1849),

James Raymond (1933-)

Ronald Raymond (1968-)

Nathaniel Raymond (1989)

From the Library of Alexandria, Anchorinth Extension at Midtown 99501-USA: Quotes from the CNO

"Merry Christmas" Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda...

The following are quotes from the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy M. "Mike" Boorda during various interviews and appearances.


It's pretty clear to me that as we get smaller, in fact as each of our services get smaller, we are going to need to be more efficient. That means we have to know what our requirements are and the military services must work together better so that we don't duplicate each other unnecessarily. We also have to buy things smarter. As our industries downsize, they are not making as much for defense. They need to be sure that they can make what we need. And we need to be sure that what we need makes sense -- both in its complexity and it's ability to use what's available in the civilian society. All of that argues for acquisition reform.

It's time to end the long requirements lists that are so detailed that no one can meet them at reasonable cost. It's also time to trust industry and work together with them as partners to produce what we need for the country. That way we will have better weapons systems, the kinds of weapons systems we need, and we'll get them at reduced costs.

That's not real easy to do. An awful lot of people have worked very hard to produce a system, a process, that reduces risks, and that produces systems that are exactly, precisely what we designate. As we now review all of that, people who work in acquisition must be more flexible as we get better at doing things with less money, while still keeping the quality up; In fact, improving the quality if we can.

One of the real good things that I think we have done as Joint Chiefs and Service Chiefs is to sign up for the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) initiative. We are now very careful to ensure we think about jointness when we specify a requirement, instead of just the needs of one service. For example, if the Navy buys an airplane, we want to be sure that it is compatible, as much as it can be, with the Air Force requirements and any Marine Corps requirements. That way we can have airplanes with similar spare parts, similar maintenance, which in many cases will be the same for as much as 80% of what's on board.

That kind of acquisition reform means that we're going to have to work together because we have to specify what we need but not in such detail that good people, in both government and industry, don't have the flexibility to produce at reasonable costs.

Acquisition reform is going to be done. It means changing the way you think about things. It means changing the way we do things, but in the end it means a better military -- quicker, cheaper, and the ability to get our job done in a better way than we've ever done it before.


I am an advocate of the supported CINC -- in our case that was USCINCEUR -- receiving the forces that he believes he needs, provided they can be provided. He might ask for more than exists or more than can be done based on how often you can deploy and for how long. You might end up in a dialogue. I am in favor of that dialogue where the supported CINC says, "This is what I need," and the supporting CINC says, "Okay," or, "I can't provide that because," with a follow-on dialogue about the because, "And I can give you this instead, which will be almost as good."

As long as that dialogue takes place, I don't have any trouble at all with adaptive force planning. It is when that dialogue doesn't take place and the supported CINC is not truly supported that I have a problem.


You know, we've been doing air defense suppression for the air force for a long time. When you start talking to the people who actually fly airplanes, when you start talking to people who actually drive ships, you begin to see these service differences melt away. The operators already know-or are learning--how to work together to get the job done. Sooner or later, we'll find it out in Washington too. We're coming along though. We're actually educating ourselves. We are becoming more joint every day. The operators are ahead of us and that is probably good.

AKULA / IMPROVED SSN 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee Testimony, 1996 Defense budget

With respect to Seawolf, I know you understand the financial business-based arguments. The operational argument goes like this: The Russians today have six submarines at sea that are quieter than the 688-Is, our best submarine. It makes sense for us to have a Seawolf-quiet submarine out there. We can't afford to keep up with the Russians right now, but we should be building ships that are quieter than theirs. This is the first time since we put Nautilus to sea that they have had submarines at sea quieter than ours. As you know, quieting is everything in submarine warfare.


Navy disciplinary rates are coming down, and we want to continue that trend. One of the really important things to come out of the Good Order and Discipline stand-down was the recognition and discussion about the direct relationship between alcohol abuse and many kinds of personal problems. It was clear that this relationship was recognized by seniors and juniors since it is a problem that affects all ranks and rates.

The new Right Spirit Program is not an anti-drinking program. It's about drinking reasonably and responsibly, if you drink at all, and looking out for each other and yourself. It's also about training and educating people, especially people showing the first signs of a problem that could lead to trouble. It is about combat readiness. In the end, we need our people to stay with us and continue to do a good job. This is really all about shipmates looking out for shipmates.


I don't have a lot of trouble putting Army helos on aircraft carriers in a limited mission like this one.

It's important to keep in mind that the low threat environment did not merit the use of tactical aircraft, which had to be cleared from the decks to make room for the Army helicopters.

There was also no threat of air or missile attack, submarines, or other ships. I think it was a pretty good use of what's available. What we are really talking about here is transport.


This is an idea - a concept, and maybe a technology demonstration.

What we thought about with this ship is that it would be a magazine to carry a lot of weapons -- carry them in a relatively safe way -- as safe and secure and survivable as possible within the cost realities that we face . We have a lot of ordnance that could be delivered from this platform in response to the fire control solution from something or somebody else.

The arsenal ship is the gun barrel, or the airplane, or the missile tube, or the whatever -- that takes the information from somebody else that says "please put your weapon here." The arsenal ship then shoots it. It's not a very sophisticated ship with respect to elaborate fire control systems. It is merely told where the target is -- probably via data links, like CEC -- and it puts the right weapon on the target. The whole idea is that it isn't a specific-weapon ship. Whatever weapon built by the Defense Department that can be launched vertically, can be fired off of the ship.

I'd like the number of people needed to operate this ship to be as small as possible -- maybe a number somewhere in the 20s. There is a lot of technology to be developed for something like this to truly work and be minimally manned. Some of the technology is defensive in nature. In other words, the ship needs to be able take damage and have that damage be controlled by a small number of people which may mean a little different kind of construction. Right now double hull is something we do with tankers -- maybe we want to do a double-hull -- or use automatic fire-fighting equipment. And you'd need engineering equipment that was relatively automatic. Most of the weapons we are talking about don't require maintenance. This isn't a "just go build it tomorrow" kind of idea.

I think semi-submersible is an acceptable idea. When you get into an operating area you probably will want to be able to ballast down and have much less freeboard and in effect much less target area for cruise missiles or some other type of airborne weapon, thereby making your defensive problems somewhat easier.

This isn't just taking a bunch of things off the shelf and doing it, but it's not as difficult as a lot of other technology projects.

If you could build a ship like this with a really small crew you probably wouldn't want to bring the ship back to the U.S. for awhile -- it could be forward deployed and you could swap out crews. That means you need fewer of them and you spend less money.


We're a long ways away from missiles being able to do the kind of thinking in the air and finding the target that a man can do in an airplane. This is certainly a modern equivalent to the battleship. It's not the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier or a Air Force composite wing. It is an ordinance platform. It delivers ordinance.

I can see this ship working in tandem with an AEGIS cruiser. It will not be autonomous out there. It is getting target information from another source. It simply needs to receive the information and if the target is within it's range -- what we would say is in it's envelope -- then it can shoot it.

People want to call it an arsenal ship and I think the reason is because it carries a lot of weapons like an arsenal, but in fact it's a fire support ship. It's providing fire support to troops ashore, or it will make it possible to get troops ashore. And because ships live a long time the weapons will get better and change as the ship goes throughout it's life -- but it's basic job is to project power ashore and support our troops ashore.


The reason there seems to be so much misinformation about this concept is that it's only a concept right now. But it is a darned good one. I think the idea that we are going to use technology and vertical-launch capability to deliver ordnance as requested and required, in a precise way, is very attractive. This may be something that becomes the new battleship in the future Navy.

For example, we now have a lot of sealift to move ammunition. We should be able to fire some of it right from the ship that brings it over [to the combat zone], particularly when we look at the success of the Tomahawk missile.

We also expect the success of ATACMS [Army tactical missile system] to allow us to shoot right from our ships, as we did from an LSD [dock landing ship] last year when we had a direct hit at 72 miles. That gives us two missiles we can shoot.

I think we also need something else that costs a little bit less. The Boorda rule of weaponry is that occasionally it would be good if the target costs more than the bullet! We need to think about gunfire support and gunnery, and simpler, less expensive rockets, too. That technology is here now.


Firepower is really the reason we had the battleship. We could put 2000 pounds of ordnance on a target with pretty good precision, but we couldn't reach very far inland. With the firepower in-close or deep over land. The arsenal ship ties in arsenal ship, we're talking about having the option to project with our strategy Forward...From the Sea and continues to make the Navy a relevant player in the land battle.


The Arsenal ship concept includes the ability to support combat forces and/or prepare the battlefield very early in a conflict, possibly even before land based airpower could be brought to the region.

This ship will be able to shoot any vertically launched missile in our inventory, including Tomahawk, AATCMS, and others not yet developed.

We are not talking about replacing TACAIR from land or aircraft carriers with the Arsenal ship. We are talking about the ability to be on-station immediately due to the continuous forward deployment pattern we envision and to supplement traditional fire support options for a ground commander and individual units ashore, as well as conducting the more traditional deep strike missions associated with today's Tomahawk missile. As new missiles are developed throughout the long life of the ship we will be able to adopt to their use as well. The goal is early and sustained modern fire support from the sea.


Some people have used the term "combined arms" to describe ASW. I'm not sure it's exactly the right term, but it's the right idea. That's because we have aviation, submarines, and surface ships involved. There is also a large shore element involved, especially for intelligence. And there are two types of missions involved, peacetime and wartime. The peacetime mission is a type of surveillance mission and the wartime mission is either to have enough information to avoid submarines, which is a good tactic, or to locate and destroy them.

We once had ASW master plans. We had master plans for everything. I think we probably need something similar. I don't know if it has to have the same name, but we need a master plan for ASW. It is too complex. It covers too many different parts of the Navy to try to do it solely through programming and budgeting.

The ASW problem gets harder and harder. We're not talking about a static situation. We're talking about newer submarines in greater numbers out in the world, and that are even quieter. We're talking about staying with a tough problem that's getting better all the time.

Mine warfare is a great example. What we did in mine warfare is exactly what we need to do in ASW. We need to get somebody responsible, accountable, and advocating, the that's what we're going to do.

ASW: AKULA 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, 1996 Defense Budget

At tactical speeds the Akula is quieter than the 688 class and is very difficult for us to detect. Our people are better and that's why we do adequately -- and I would say adequately.

While the threat is not there, the capabilities, and intent can change rapidly. There are six Russian improved Akulas that are a match -- better than a match -- for our 688-I's. There will be 12 of them in the next decade. They will not be a match for the Seawolf, nor will they be a match for the New Attack Submarine.

I am also concerned about proliferation of submarines throughout the world. There are now 43 nations other than the United States that operate submarines. China, as you just said, agreed to buy 10. They'd already agreed to buy four, and they have options on some more, going up to 22. The Iranians are running an exercise as we speak in the Straights of Hormuz with one of their new Kilos, and I am surprised by how well they are doing in operating that submarine. I didn't think that they would be able to maintain it and operate it as well as they apparently are, so I think those are all good reasons to keep a submarine production base in this country and to continue to build.


As the Russians operate their submarines more, and as they sell more Kilo submarines, and more good submarines are being built on license by emerging nations-nations that are not enemies now--we see an increasing number of good, quiet submarines in the world in larger numbers. All of these things tell me that we need to pay more attention to ASW training and systems.

We are paying more attention to ASW without shifting the emphasis off "Forward...From the Sea." That is important for a couple of reasons. The first is that close-to-shore warfare is where the diesel-powered submarine does best. The quiet diesel is becoming a growing concern to us as we continue our "Forward...From the Sea" strategy.

Secondly, much of the ASW technology is information exchange. We must know the area around the battle force or battle group, and keep battle-space dominance in that area. These are all things we have to do to carry out "Forward...From the Sea" littoral warfare. I am comfortable that any emphasis we put on ASW right now is not misplaced.


ASW is a very complex business. It uses aircraft, surface ships, submarines, shore-based systems, meteorology, and intelligence. I would like to have one person I can look to and say: "You are responsible for knowing about ASW. You are accountable for making sure the programs do what they are supposed to do." I don't want to blow this up out of proportion, because I think ASW is doing OK. I'd just like to be better, and I know that the threat is going to continue to get tougher.

Surface Warfare MAGAZINE
I'm in favor of authorizing BAQ for first class petty officers on sea duty. I would like to provide it for all petty officers, but because money is so tight, PO1s will be a good first step. This is one of the proposals we're going to try to work out during the budget process.


If we get the authorization bill this year, we'll have BAQ for E-5's and E-6's who are serving on sea duty. $100.00 per month is a big deal. We're pushing hard to do that, and I think we'll be successful in the next year.

BATTLESHIPS 1/30/95 INTERVIEW Navy Marine Corps News

Striking the battleships was a tough decision, but it was one that reflected reality. It costs money to keep ships in mothballs, ready to be reactivated, and we really didn't see a situation in the foreseeable future where we would reactivate the battleships. It became an issue of it's time for them to become museums and no longer be assets for war-fighting.

I'm sorry to say battleships are just too expensive to keep now and I'm hoping that cities will pick them up and make monuments out of them. There is no question that there are cities interested and my guess is that some will be successful.

What we don't have are big caliber guns. We are working on some programs to increase the size of our guns at sea--up to 155 mm caliber, but we're also looking at precision guided munitions so that the smaller rounds count. You put it right where you want to put it. That doesn't give you the penetration power of a 16 inch projectile, but it does give you great accuracy.

We now have a lot of Tomahawks out on the fleet with the vertical launch system so we actually have much more Tomahawk firepower than we had with the battleships.


The future disposition of these important ships will be carefully considered. Prospective communities who are interested in making a battleship a museum ship must provide proof that they have the resources and support to maintain these ships in a condition befitting a commissioned ship of the U.S. Navy.

I feel that these ships should be maintained for everyone to enjoy, both as memorials and to help inform the public about the important contributions our Navy has made to our nation's vital interests. I am fully committed that none of these historic battleships will be sold to foreign governments or scrapped while I am CNO.


The bomber, especially in its future configurations with precision-guided munitions, brings a large carrying capability. It flies relatively few sorties, but it can fly a long way. That's why you want it--for its long reach. And when it does fly a sortie, it drops a lot of ordnance--all in the same place. These are vastly different capabilities.

The bomber doesn't provide close air support; the aircraft carrier tactical aircraft can. So can air force land-based tactical air. I really think some people are making specious comparisons between things that just don't match up very well.

To be quite honest about it, I think we need bombers. I'm not an anti-bomber proponent. I am a proponent for a strong national defense with all the many capabilities this nation should have.

BOSNIA 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wire Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

The Balkans are complex. You don't have one warring faction. You don't even have the three everybody talks about all the time - Serbs, Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims. You really have many more than that. You have minorities and ethnic groups within these groups. You have areas that have split off, you have irregular forces. It's hard to think about what would be a regular force in this area that is mostly irregular. You also have sponsor states adding to the confusion and adding even more irregular forces.

The war in Bosnia will end in a diplomatic way. People are going to stop fighting because they've been beaten, or they've achieved all they can achieve, or because they've decided that what they think they might achieve is no longer worth the price it will cost them. That's the way every war ends, eventually.

We need to have policies and decision making that leads to a diplomatic solution. It must be a diplomatic solution that we think is acceptable from our point of view.

We eased into Bosnia, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean it as a fact. The reason we eased in was because the UN resolutions eased in. The resolutions started out as monitoring sanctions. Then they grew into enforcement, but there were restrictions as to how we could enforce. Then finally, we got near-blanket enforcement authority. The resolutions grew in stridency and severity as the conflict got worse. That's what the UN should be expected to do. I think it was a natural evolution.

BOTTOM-UP REVIEW (BUR) 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

One of the things we all know for sure right now is that the forces we have are being stretched. If you believe the BUR requirements, it means that as a superpower this nation must be ready to act in two separated parts of the world at the same time.

That's really the key ... all else flows from this. But when you look at our forces today, you say: "These people are stressed; they are out there working hard"; it is not business as usual. The answer is not to cut force levels any further. The real answer is either spend your money differently or get more money. If we are not going to get more money, then we are going to have to look at spending it differently. And to some that means cutting new programs. If you cut too many new programs, then you are simply putting off the problem.

I believe we should be careful not to wish away the requirement that a superpower must be able to act in two widely separated parts of the world at the same time. We had a potential for involvement in Korea, while our forces were involved with Haiti, Cuba, Rwanda, Somalia, and Yugoslavia. I think we should be barely comfortable if we can do two major operations at once. We need adequately sized forces and we need a reasonable modernization program.


Letter to Senate Armed Services Committee I believe the Bottom-Up Review numbers are about right for us, and that they will meet the requirements of the Unified CINCs in forward presence and war-fighting into the 21st century.

BRAC '95 7/5/94 INTERVIEW Defense Week

BRACs cost money. Most things don't close for free. The Navy in many respects is a big business. If you think about BRAC in a business sense, you have to think about how long it takes you before this expenditure produces 'profits.' In the Navy's case, it's not profits but less expenditures....

There is good recognition that you simply cannot run an infrastructure that is bigger than you need without spending money on infrastructure that should be used on war fighting capability.

BRAC / BASE CLOSINGS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Major Daily Newspapers

We have more infrastructure that we need to shed. We need the BRAC process. We're going to work hard to identify excess capacity and see how we can get it down further. If you relate it to a family budget or a business budget, it's pretty clear how it all works. We have fixed costs and we have a relatively fixed income. If we were a business you'd say we're worried about the ability to produce our product. Our product is readiness. We're worried about near term readiness. In a fixed income environment, you've got to make the fixed costs smaller or you can't spend money on what you need to do today or investments for the future.

I don't have a target. Somebody here might have a dollar value in their mind, but I don't. I want to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money and I want to spend it on things that I really need to spend it on.


Not only don't I have any trouble with that-I like it,. We have too much infrastructure in the military. The trouble has always been how to close it in a smart way.


He was a great leader who loved his Navy and the people in it. VADM Bulkeley's many years of peacetime service, especially his duty as the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey, touched nearly every person who went to sea during more than two decades. For a ship to have passed a "John Bulkeley" inspection with high marks was truly the pinnacle of excellence at sea.


When he stood up on the podium on the day we christened USS Arleigh Burke, he said, "this ship was meant to fight. Your better know how." Those were the words that came out of his mouth. Well, he knew how to fight and he also knew what people would need to be able to fight appropriately and win. So he combined those two things and gave us a great Navy.

He had two speeds - "Stop" and "As fast as you can go." And his Sailors loved him for that.

CARRIERS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I think we have convincingly displayed the need for 11 active carriers. Plus we found a way to use one of our carriers as a reserve carrier with a surge capability.

That doesn't mean 12 carriers steaming out around the world all the time. That means that one might be in overhaul, and one might be training, and one might be doing something else. But that's the number we believe we need.

There are people who think other numbers are necessary. There are people who think 15 would be a lot better. . I happen to think 42 would be great! -- I just made that up, by the way -- it's an affordability issue for the country. I think 11 + 1 is what we need for our security not only now but in the future as well. Carriers, like everything else, get old and need to be replaced. In this case, we'd like to replace a fossil fuel carrier with one of our new carriers -- a better, more efficient class of carrier -- that can "live" for another 50 years.

It goes back to the earlier question, with 11+1 carriers, we won't be able to be every place all the time. I think it would be better for the U.S. to be in the Mediterranean all the time, but 11+1 doesn't do that, and military people are in the business of taking prudent risks. Taking risks is what we do. . With 42 carriers I wouldn't have any trouble at all. They'd be everywhere all the time. But with 11+1, we're going to have gaps, so we have to manage those necessary gaps and reduce the risk as best we can.


We really need twelve aircraft carriers in our Navy; they are a complete package of aviation capabilities. We need aircraft carriers for presence in the world, crisis response and control, and when all else fails, for force if it's the answer chosen by the President . With America due to retire in style after her current deployment off Bosnia and in the Persian Gulf, Stennis will be part of our Navy's great tradition and a big part of the Navy's great future.


An aircraft carrier brings a full range of aviation capabilities - an entire wing of capability and more: early warning, electronic warfare, strike, fighter, tanker, antisubmarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and so on. It's all in the package. (the air force would call it a composite wing.) And that package is available to the naval commander -- or the joint task force commander -- in almost every war-fighting instance, today. That's what an aircraft carrier brings. The carrier is a very flexible platform with tactical air on it. It brings the complete package I just described. The carrier doesn't require host-nation support and it can strike again and again and again.


I don't think there is a good carrier argument to say that if you have carriers you don't need bombers, and I don't think there is a good bomber argument to say that if you have bombers you don't need carriers. I think they do different things, very different things.


I share that excitement with many people, including Secretary of Defense Perry who visited the Eisenhower Battle Group for a CEC demonstration shortly before they deployed. He came back immensely impressed. And these technologies are just the tip of the iceberg.


CEC doesn't change warfare; it changes the way we think about the use of platforms in warfare. Warfare is still about shooting down enemy targets. CEC gives us new options in the way we do that. It is not an evolution, but it is a major step on a scale which rivals the development of radar.

CHAIN OF COMMAND 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I want to write to officers who are in command and senior enlisted who have people working for them, rather than send everything to everybody all the time. It needs to get the command "spin." That's important. I have a consistent message I want to get out to the Navy. I'm going to use every means to do that. At the same time, I want to get the important, "What I expect you to do" messages out through the chain of command, because I intend to hold the chain of command responsible and accountable for what their people do.


Change is with us. Change in what we do, how we do it, and sometimes it's even where we do it. It's inevitable that there will be change in how we procure our equipment for the future.

The only message I'd like to give industry is that we're not afraid to adopt new ideas or new ways of doing business, or to seek the authority to reach out just a little bit further than we have in the past.

It will be a lot better if we figure that out together, as the customer and the supplier.

CHINA / SPRATLYS 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

Ownership of the Spratlys has been contentious for as long as I can remember. I think the interesting thing about the Spratlys is that we're no longer in the Philippines -- a fact -- and that the Chinese are moving out that far from their own shores. My worry about the Spratlys is not some great naval engagement or fight, it's more what it indicates. It's an indicator of China moving out.

I think China -- and what their future plans are -- is something that we all need to watch, not only because of the fact that they're as large as they are and they're a nuclear power, but also because they can cause reactions in the region that begin to affect us, our allies and our trading partners. And so I think -- this is my own personal opinion -- that the main event could well be in Asia in our lifetime, could well be China now.


It has been quite some time since we took a complete look at issues of command tour lengths, command opportunity and which commands should be designated for what ranks and communities. The annual reviews have tended to make small changes to the established lists and that is fine for most years but, as our Navy is getting close to stabilizing in size and types of commands, it is a good time to do a complete scrub and make sure we have it just right. The Chief of Naval Personnel will direct this review and report the findings to me. I have no preconceived ideas about the outcome. What I have directed is a complete, thorough review that will lead to whatever changes (many or very few) are appropriate.

COMMUNICATION / NAVY TELEVISION 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

Communicating with people is important. I think if you communicate in only one way, you probably are doomed to not get your message out. I plan to communicate with Navy people every way I can. Since television is now real important, I will be on a special television show we have every week for a while.

Message to Navy Commanders
Good news has little value if those most impacted don't know about it. We must continue the good efforts I've noted before to get info to our people in as many different ways as possible.


"Communications up and down the chain of command is important. But don't shoot the messenger or you won't know the problems you have to work and don't sit in the office and wait for the info to come to may not."

COMMUNICATIONS/LEADERSHIP 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

Whenever I talk to people who are going into command, I tell them about the importance of communications, communications, and communications. Communication with your people inside the lifelines is the most important thing you can do as a leader.


Everything done by Navy people can and should be tied to our core values. The individual efforts of Navy people, how we do our jobs and how we deal with each other, relate directly to our tenets of honor, commitment and courage. They are the guideposts for each of us, on and off duty, at work and at home. Once learned, they are held within us and stay with us for life. They are, in every way, the foundation for our career of service -- service to our nation, our shipmates, our family, and even to ourselves.

CROSSDECKING 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Crossdecking right now is not excessive, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to watch it. It's one of the first symptoms that we will see if we have a personnel readiness problem. I have received reports from the fleet CINCs [Commanders in Chief] and to date the numbers are small.

It is the signal I need to watch for. We are downsizing, and it is hard to get the right mix of people in each rating and specialty. We do not want to get in crossdecking trouble because retention trouble follows, and then petty officer shortfalls are the result. We have been down that road before.


Forward deployments will remain the essential element of our operations. Our presence takes on added importance as the number of U.S. overseas military shore locations diminish. To be where we are needed when we are needed, we must be forward before the call goes out.

Being forward provides another very important benefit to our Navy and nation. It allows us to train with our friends and allies so that when we need to do a real-world mission, we can organize quickly and work together smoothly.


There has been some talk about reducing forward presence by making deployments shorter than six months and staying ready but in home ports instead. I want to be very clear that we are not planning to do that. While we are committed to deployments lasting no longer than six months and to the perstempo and optempo goals, I see forward presence as a key portion of Navy's contribution.

The value of our being forward deployed is well documented in the original "From the Sea" and our update, "Forward....From the Sea. We intend to continue with that strategy. Our best customers, the forward geographic Unified CINCS, remain convinced that having forward deployed naval forces are essential to mission accomplishment in routine times and in crises. In fact, they would have more if we could provide it.

Recent operations such as vigilant warrior in CENTCOM have proven the value of our ARG's, CVBG's and SSN's being forward. SECNAV and I just took a brief by the OSD staff that had that as one of the lessons learned.

DEPLOYMENTS / PERSTEMPO 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think it's probably not realistic to think about a Navy where people don't deploy. Navies go to sea. Navies are forward deployed. That's what they do.

It is important not to do that too much. It's important not to do that too often and it is very important to take care of families when you are home or when they are home and you are gone.

Housing is critically important to us. Medical care is critically important to us. Decent pay and decent benefits are essential for us. It is what makes the sacrifice of deployment bearable.

People are quite proud of what they do on deployment, as I know you well know. This is not an unbearable burden and we shouldn't make it unbearable.


You have to know where you are before you know where you are going. To look at a military problem-and we are talking about real tactics with which to fight--and come up with innovative solutions is what good military leaders do. For example, if you are going to attack land targets in an area, there are tactics, force packages, and information networks to think about. Doctrine provides the commander with the standard for doing so. If you then choose to deviate from that standard, and you probably always will deviate some, you do so understanding what it means when you deviate.

Innovation is great and we must have it. We just need to be sure we have a solid basis for that innovation. It is called doctrine.

When I leave here, we will have a strong doctrine and a strong organization where innovative war fighters can deviate from a standard based on an analysis of a mission.


It is not unusual to see EA-6B's flying in support of Air Force aircraft.

Just recently, the Marines sent a squadron of EA-6B's to Sigonella to support operations over Bosnia, and they weren't just supporting Air Force aircraft. EA-6B's from carriers recently assumed this mission. During a portion of the time, when the carrier was elsewhere, the EA-6B's have accomplished this mission by flying from land-based fields in the area. In addition, they were supporting Navy aircraft and also the aircraft of many nations who were contributing to operation deny flight or doing humanitarian work in the region.


Sailors can look for an advancement system and an evaluation system that doesn't make them head-to-head competitors but encourages even more teamwork and to be better than the standards - to be something special. That's why I want to change the evaluation system.


As I have traveled around the Navy and talked to Navy people, it became clear to me that concerns about our current evaluation system for officers and enlisted are well founded. The current system is fair, and works, but it can be improved, if we do it right.

Inflation of marks and comments are a growing concern. Our current system does an excellent job of identifying the very top performers and those with significant problems. We need a better way to differentiate among those in the middle.

I also found the current individual ranking system where people are compared to peers in the workplace to be working against our core values of teamwork and quality improvement. I believe it will be better to evaluate people against a well understood standard than against individuals with whom they happened to be assigned.

Any new system that we approve will be as fair as it can possibly be. And any changes we approve will be for the better and not just for the sake of change.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 5/25/95 SPEECH National Image Organization Awards Banquet

Equal Opportunity is more than not discriminating against another person. It is more than avoiding treating a person differently because they are not exactly like you. It is more than not harassing someone or breaking the rules. Equal Opportunity means equal access to all the things that lead to success.

I see Equal Opportunity as a critical readiness issue for the military services. Because we know -- we sense in our hearts -- that ... as a team, we are better when we all perform at our best.

FLEET REORGANIZATION/FORCE STRUCTURE 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

That is the reason why we, in the Navy, are going to restructure our fleet this year, to keep some of those smaller ships and use them to take the pressure off the bigger, more sophisticated ones. We will change the way we train slightly, so that we don't train everybody for everything. Instead, we can conserve some of their time at sea and train them for what we think they're going to do, with a margin for safety, in case they have to do more.

I think we can keep the Navy ready. However, I am not as comfortable about the future, the further out you get, as I am about right now.

FORCE STRUCTURE 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

We have cut commitments about as far as I think we can cut them. Until recently we had two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean all the time, and it wasn't very long ago that we had two carriers in the Indian Ocean as well. The issue for us is that we have pretty much cut our force as far as we can in view of what the nation requires us to do around the world.

While cutting commitments we have built more flexibility into our schedules. We deploy smaller battle groups and amphibious ready groups. There are times when we have no carriers in the Mediterranean and times when there isn't one in the Indian Ocean. So we've been about as flexible as we can be while still doing what our Navy is required to do. That's why we need to look at the numbers of ships, submarines and airplanes we have to perform our mission and be sure we get that right. That's exactly why we're looking at the force structure.

FORCE STRUCTURE 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

My own personal opinion is that we should stay at 346 ships; that's the Bottom-Up Review number. And there really is a reason for that number. Being the BUR number gives it some validity, but it also is achievable. It's achievable because while we have decommissioned most of the steam ships and are decommissioning submarines at the rate we can, based on our capacity to decommission them. We still have some frigates, FFGs, with a lot of life left that we were going to decommission and give to other nations or put in mothballs. By saving 15 of those, and one other ship, we get to the 346 number without having to go through a new increased procurement plan.

FORCE STRUCTURE/PERSTEMPO 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

If we get too small today, and the requirements keep coming for a Navy to meet emerging world tasks or to be present, we end up deploying too much. If we work people too hard, we wear out both our people and our equipment, and then we end up with exactly what we didn't want: a Navy that can't do what it's supposed to do.

FORWARD...FROM THE SEA 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

Forward...From the Sea is not a new strategy, but rather an evolution of...From the Sea. When we wrote ...From the Sea three years ago, we knew we had to remain a Navy that was capable of controlling the seas because most of the world's commerce-and in time of crisis, warfighting materials - move by sea. We also knew that in the new security situation, caused by the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was much more likely that we were going to fight near land and over land.

Absolutely none of that has disappeared in Forward...From the Sea. While we didn't just repeat all the words, that basic underpinning of our strategy is as valid today as it was three years ago. The difference is that our experiences in several crises since publication of ...From the Sea showed us that we needed to stress "being forward" as a greater part of our strategy. For the Navy and Marine Corps team to do what it must do for the nation -- to guarantee security, to influence events, to deter and control crises, or if necessary, to be the first forces on scene to take the initial actions when there is a crisis -- we must be forward.


Forward-presence is the essence of our business. Our Navy's mission during peacetime is to be forward, working and operating with our allies, like NATO, and with potential allies. Most importantly, being forward means we are ready to respond to or deter crisis as in our most recent experience with Iraq in the Persian Gulf.


I think there are all kinds of forward presence. We know what our job is and what we're supposed to do and we know how we fit in the joint world.

Let's talk about combat forward presence. We're out in the world where we need to be to either be in the place where the crisis requires our presence, or we can get there in a time that is acceptable to the Unified CINC who will receive the forces. We've either got the combat power there or are able to get there in the time the Unified CINC will require it.


In this post-Cold war era, forward deployed naval forces have a pre-eminent role in deterring, controlling, and enhancing regional stability. Naval forces must remain "able" and "ready".

FORWARD PRESENCE VS. SURGE 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Naval forces, FORWARD.....FROM THE SEA, are on station and ready, in a fully joint and combined manner, to lead and participate in unilateral, bilateral and fully combined operations whenever and wherever this Nation requires them. Because we are FORWARD our Nation can call upon these ships, aircraft and personnel without the need for surge from the United States and without the need for permission to base them on foreign soil. Rapid response, significant force, visible presence - these are all important contributions of naval forces, Navy and Marines, positioned forward.

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

The high seas have no nationality and we may pass as we choose; the sea is the best avenue for U.S. strategic mobility; naval forces are not subject to the political whims of foreign governments; carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups provide visible, flexible and credible combat power; and above all, we must retain the ability to influence events overseas.


These 15 ships will keep our battleforce ships at or very near the BUR total of 346 ships. They help us avoid a situation where we try to meet requirements through a negative PERSTEMPO for our people. And they certainly improve our overall readiness as we do not have to over deploy the ships we have.

It does NOT mean that we are falling off the need for recapitalization. We must continue to build enough new ships to maintain our future force. The need to recapitalize and modernize remains the keystone of our future plan.


House NSC on FY96 Defense budget I wanted to keep the FFGs so that I could ease the personnel tempo and the tempo on the equipment sufficiently to avoid those op tempo "breaks" that we all know will lead to a hollow force. I think we can do that.

Coincidentally, keeping 15 more FFG's happens to get us back to the Bottom-Up Review number. Somebody did their math pretty well when they did the Bottom-Up Review. We had decided to go down to 330 ships for budget reasons (versus the BUR number of 346 ships). I think that probably wasn't a good decision, and I'm working to reverse that. That's why we're keeping the FFGs.


Homesteading is one of the competing needs we balance when we are looking at quality of life factors, combat readiness and mission accomplishment.

We'd like to have people serve longer tours in one area. We know that people who are in a job longer gain additional experience in that job, become better leaders in that job, and improve combat readiness -- or improve the support of combat units.

We also want to spend money on things that improve the quality of life for Navy people. High PCS costs make it hard to do that since it is money that could be spent on QOL items if it's not spent on PCS moves. PCS moves can also disrupt the family income from working spouses where a second income is very important, cause children to change schools, and make home purchases much harder.

For all of these reasons, longer tours and follow-on tours in the same place can make a very positive difference to our people and our Navy. Stability is a good thing for our people and our Navy when it can be provided and still result in all the important billets, in all locations, being filled. We are going to work even harder than before to permit longer area tours when we can do it in a smart way.

HOUSING MILCON 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

We really need support on our MILCON budget for housing for people. We badly need that. We don't have a lot of money there but we put more money there and I guess maybe we even put it at risk when we did that, but we must take care of our people, and two of the places where it's most important right now is Hawaii and Naples, Italy.

IMPACT AID 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think it's obvious that housing, decent medical care, education for your kids, and a few other things, are the basics of life. If education got worse for our people's children, if there was a great deal of resentment that could be felt by the military families living there, if there was a financial burden to the family themselves because the government now wasn't willing to bear it, all of those things would of course reduce morale.

INFORMATION WARFARE 10/24/95 SPEECH Navy Information Warfare Command Ceremony

Information warfare is about warfighting -- making sure that people who go fight have the very best chance to get their mission done, win that fight, and come home safely. Today information warfare is assuming a very important role in warfighting.

As we rely, more and more, on detailed information, we need to protect it. As the enemy relies more and more on detailed information -- available to him in many more ways than ever before -- we have opportunities to make his life miserable.

There is now more information out there to be skewed, manipulated and changed. We can now confuse an enemy more than we could before because he increasingly relies upon electronic information.

The opportunity for this command (Navy Information Warfare Command) to make a difference in the outcome of the battle is greater than ever before.

INNOVATION 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Innovation is great and we must have it. We just need to be sure we have a solid basis for that innovation. It is called doctrine.

INTELLIGENCE 2/27/95 SPEECH Joint Military Intelligence College

It is important to understand the distinction between information and intelligence. Information is an assimilation of data that has been gathered, but not fully correlated, analyzed, or interpreted. Intelligence, on the other hand, is the transformation of information into knowledge and insight.

JOINT WARFARE 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

I believe that joint warfare, or joint crisis response, is exactly the way to go. That doesn't mean that everything has to be joint every minute. It does not mean that we should ignore individual service capabilities and competencies. It means that you should not hesitate to put together the best force you can for the task, and sometimes that might be a single-service force.

It doesn't do to just put "joint" in every sentence. Talking about it is interesting; doing it is something else. I support holding exercises that include not only the U.S. services, but also those from different countries. We are smart to train like we are going to fight, and large-scale conflicts will not be single-service or even single-nation fights. We need joint and combined doctrine and we need to train with it.

JPATS 6/26/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE CNO Message to Navy Commanders

Beech was selected to produce the JPATS primary trainer for both Navy and Air Force because it is a solid, basically off the shelf, procurement that will put our new aviators in a modern aircraft. The result will be a significant reduction in training time, making the transition to more complex aircraft in the advanced phase of flight training easier for our students. With JPATS and the T-45 we'll have first rate training aircraft in our inventory and we are doing it at a reasonable cost. Flying the same aircraft for primary flight training will also open up new potential for cooperation and coordination with the Air Force.

JPATS / JOINT PILOT TRAINING 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

I think that when we look at our aircraft inventory for training, what we have bought and are buying, we are able to go with the plan the Air Force has -- or even a slightly later plan -- and still have sufficient aircraft. The urgency of JPATS for the Navy is not there. However, the need is, in fact, there and we will agree with the Air Force plan for buying the aircraft.

With respect to the joint training, General McPeak and I, before he retired, and since then General Fogelman and I, have agreed on a pretty aggressive plan to take some economies by having us train some officers and pilots for them in both navigation and electronic warfare. The Air Force is doing the same with pilots for us; we do cross training. We have officers in each of their training squadrons now and I think you will see more of that.

We kind of finished our agreements last fall and now we will see how it's working this year. This has been a time to stop, take a deep breath, and execute what we have already agreed to. I think we are doing pretty well together. I am proud of the efforts so far.


One of the real good things that I think we have done as Joint Chiefs and Service Chiefs is to sign up for the JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) initiative. We are now very careful to ensure we think about jointness when we specify a requirement, instead of just in terms of one service. For example, if the Navy buys an airplane, we want to be sure that it is compatible, as much as it can be, with the Air Force requirements and any Marine Corps requirements. That way we can have similar spare parts, similar maintenance, and airplanes, which in many cases, will be the same, for as much as 80% of what's on board.

That kind of acquisition reform means that we're going to have to work together because we have to specify what we need but not in such detail that good people, in both government and industry, don't have the flexibility to produce it at reasonable costs.

Acquisition reform is going to be done. It means changing the way you think about things. It means changing the way we do things, but in the end it means a better military -- quicker, cheaper, and the ability to get our job done in a better way than we've ever done it before.


Senior Chief George Everding took it as a personal affront when one of his people got into trouble. He was the kind of guy who looked and said, "Where did I fail that person?" Instead of, "Why did that person fail?"

The punishment system will work but what I'd really like to do is have "me" understand why I shouldn't do that, so it never becomes an issue. It's all about leadership.


When I was a young Sailor, I had an LPO(First Class Petty Officer) who knew everything important there was to know about me; who monitored my performance on a day-to-day basis; who would have been able to know when I was headed in the wrong direction; and understood it was his job to not let that happen. As I got more senior, that person became a Chief Petty Officer...I always knew who that person was, and he knew who he was.

Let me be blunt:

I couldn't have been a skinhead without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been contemplating AWOL without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been thinking about suicide without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have been less than prepared for the next advancement exam without my leader knowing it;

I couldn't have had a drug problem without my leader knowing it; and so on.

I believe they were also the kind of leaders who wouldn't just know, but would also act. That is what we need to get back...not just for the majority, but for every one of the people in our Navy.

Leadership 8/1/94 SPEECH USNA Change of Command

Carrying out the multitude of administrative tasks that fall to the leader is a chore that never ends. A problem solved, a decision made, leads one only to the next problem to be dealt with, the next decision to be made. It is a never ending series of tasks, each of which must be completed, each of which must be done well. The leader can never rest on his laurels for the next challenge is just hours, sometimes moments away.

LEADERSHIP -- FACTS AND PERCEPTION 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

The word perception should not be in a leader's lexicon. You should be focused on problems and solutions. Facts are everything, and you should act on facts.

LEADERSHIP -- FORM AND SUBSTANCE 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

When things go wrong, commanders sometimes think about form over substance. Don't look at form nearly as much as substance when trying to solve a problem. Keep substance and form separate.

LEAP / TBMD 2/22/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY House National Security Committee on 1996 Defense Authorization

We know that theater ballistic missiles are proliferating around the world and going to countries that we worry about. If they follow the normal evolution of weapons systems, they will become more accurate, have longer range and more lethal warheads.

Strategic lift, both airlift and sealift, is necessary to deploy U.S. forces forward in times of crisis. We must have some capability for theater ballistic missile defense from the sea, from the DDGs that we are buying and the cruisers that we already bought.

If you don't, how are you going to get a lodgement or an airfield ashore to bring in Army troops and the Patriot batteries, and the THAD and the Corsam and all the other things that we are going to need? How do you protect those forces from theater ballistic missiles until the shore based batteries are in place and operational?


Prepositioning is proving to be an awfully good thing to do. It works, and we will continue to use these ships well.


We need to keep together. We are truly embarked on this together. As the fiscal situation gets tighter, as the technological push and pull -- and it is both of those -- it pushes you because others are getting new technology, and it pulls you because you want to do the best you can do -- as those two forces make us more complex and more advanced in the way we do things, it gets more and more important that industry and the military work in partnership.

By that I mean each doing the best that it can do. In our case, it means defining requirements in ways that don't add cost unnecessarily and in industries' case meeting those requirements in a way that is not gold plating. We need to do it in a way that is in real cooperation, producing products we can use at prices we can afford to pay. It's not going to be acceptable to produce wonderful things that we don't have money to buy.


Focus on mission accomplishment is essential but when it is done to the exclusion of all the things that must go right to contribute to that end, the command is doomed to fail eventually. CO's have to set priorities and, quite often, they are the only ones who can know where the limited command attention time they have can best be applied.


The Navy proves everyday that you can make mistakes and you can come back. Look at the number of officers who are promoted, not the first time around, but the second time around. You can make a mistake and you can come back. It depends on the severity of the mistake and what your job is.

There are certain kinds of mistakes you can't make and can't come back. There are others that you can. I'm not sure you can define that in advance.

One of the reasons I wanted to have the standdown -- and again, it was in advance of the Admiral Macke situation Ernie was asking about -- was to help people avoid making mistakes in the first place.

MODERNIZATION 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee

In striving for balance among force structure, readiness and modernization our building programs are not as robust as they have been in the past. We have reluctantly slowed modernization. But given the funds available, I believe we have made the right choices.


People are working very hard. Although it's always popular to say we're trying to do more with less, in fact we are doing less with less. We have a Navy today with fewer ships and fewer people. Sometimes we're able to keep it all in balance, and sometimes you don't. When you see systemic requirements that you're working at a certain level, you've got to be sure your forces are a match for it. I think that's about where we are today. I don't think we can just cut, cut, cut any more and expect to get savings that way, and still do what's going to be required from us. We've got to find smarter ways to do things.

NATO 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

If coalition warfare and alliance warfare really are the way of the future -- and I think everybody agrees that they are -- no one nation wants to go it alone. We must have training, procedures and standards that you have practiced over the years. NATO brings each of these to the table.

If you'll stop and think back to the Gulf War, although we brought into our coalition some nations that were not members of NATO, we all used NATO procedures -- even down to the codes. It's the way of the present, not just the future.

Finally, NATO can bring pressure to bear, if the nations in NATO choose to do so. Crisis management as well as crisis response becomes possible. It is a potent force. I think we've proved that.


I'm very pleased by the DoD decision to not raise the 50-cent/month deduction from our enlisted people for the Armed Forces Retirement Homes. When we're taking money out of Sailors pay for something, the Sailors need to know that we have explored every other possibility. And you need to be sure it's necessary. In this case, we're not sure it's necessary. I'm glad we were able to make that case.

I think the Naval Home and the Soldiers and Airmen Home need to be put on a solid financial basis and that needs to be done by the management created when the homes were taken away from the military departments. I talked to the people who run these homes, their Board of Directors, and they are going to look real hard at how they can submit a balanced budget without taking any more money away from Sailors.


Navy families are an important part of the Navy-Marine Corps team. In fact, Navy families represent the very reason it is important for our service members to continue to serve and to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure our safety and security in a troubled and uncertain world. Our way of life, our very freedom, is rooted in the family and in family values.

Service in the Navy, as a service member or family member, is not an easy task. The stability so many Americans take for granted is not available to us. We move often, our children attend many different schools, our pay and benefits depend in large measure on the actions of others in the Administration and in Congress. We endure frequent separations as the ships and squadrons must go forward to do their important jobs.

It is essential that we provide for our families for, if we do not, we cannot expect the very best to stay with us. So for human concerns and reasons and for readiness as well, we simply must provide a good quality of life for everyone.

NAVY LEAGUE 4/22/95 STATEMENT Message to Navy League of the United States

We have a wonderful Navy and our Sailors proved it again this past year. Off Korea, in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, in the waters near and the skies over Bosnia, steaming and flying in the Western Pacific near North Korea, in the operations relating to Haiti and Cuba and a thousand other, less noticed ways, they did it all and they did it with professionalism and style.

Our Navy League continues to play a vitally important role, perhaps more vital than ever during this time of limited resources. With your support we will provide these great Sailors with the ships, aircraft, equipment, quality of life and all the other ingredients of combat readiness coupled with a proper life for them and their families. You care about our Navy and, more importantly, about our Navy people and you turn that caring into positive action to make a difference.


This nation needs to build submarines. We all acknowledged that an SSN-24 doesn't make sense to us and that we need to get on with something new.

That 'something new' needs be smaller [than the SSN-21], a lot cheaper and on time. We don't want to make it more expensive by losing the capability to build them and trying to regenerate it later. That's why we're trying to get it going in a reasonable time frame.

OFFICER MANNING 3/12/96 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY SASC opening statement for FY97 budget

A six percent permanent grade increase in DOD Office Personnel Management Act restrictions at the O-4, O-5, and O-6 levels would further help us shape the force. These restrictions were in place prior to the downsizing and the establishment of increased joint field grade requirements mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Act. This relief is necessary to compensate for those increased joint requirements, to assist in correcting a current Nurse Corps grade structure imbalance, and to help maintain promotion opportunities at acceptable levels set by the Congress for the Unrestricted Line. Grade table relief will permit flexible use of ceilings to manage promotion rates.


Pay is a major quality of life issue. Secretary Perry, Secretary Dalton, General Shalikashvilli, and Admiral Bill Owens -- and each of the Service Chiefs -- we all agree that this department should ask every time for the maximum pay raise authorized by law and that's what we've been doing. The maximum pay raise authorized by law is still a half of a percent below the ECI (Employment Cost Index). Someday that needs to be fixed. If you let that go on long enough it will effect retention, so we have to watch pay. The good news for sailors is we've asked for the maximum amount afforded by law.

PEOPLE 12/1/94 INTERVIEW All Hands Magazine

Our Navy and nation have a technological advantage over anyone we might happen to fight. But our real advantage is our people. The dedication, abilities and knowledge of our people are key to our readiness. That's why we spend so much time and effort on training and retention. Having Sailors who know how to do their jobs well is the difference between our Navy and other nations who could become potential enemies. We have the best Sailors in the world.

PEOPLE / BENEFITS 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

Our people are doing a great job. They are working harder and harder in this new security environment, and as they do so, we need to take care of them. And that means good medical care, no discussions about changes to their retirement, the benefits that they need and decent housing.

PERSTEMPO 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the SASC

A key quality of life and resulting readiness factor is the amount of time our personnel spend away from home. We have done a good job of holding the line on the length of forward deployments for our sea-duty personnel to six months. As our Navy gets smaller we have had to work harder to hold on to this limit but I am happy to report that we have been successful.

That is, however, only part of the story. We must also provide sufficient time at home between six-month deployments in order to permit the necessary maintenance and training without overtaxing our people and our ships and aircraft. It would do little good to limit deployments to six months if we simply deployed again in such a short time that our people were never home and our systems could not be maintained. To put the challenge of high Naval PERSTEMPO rates into perspective, last month on a typical day (14 March) 133,000 DoD personnel were forward-deployed away from home. Of these 98,000 were Sailors or Marines (84,000 Sailors).

PERSTEMPO 3/7/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Senate Armed Services Committee Defense Authorization Hearing

We have to worry about the tempo that we operate those forces and the amount of time we keep our people away from home. They produce a product the nation needs, but they can't produce it at too great a sacrifice, and if we ask for too great a sacrifice, we pay for it in equipment that doesn't work and people that don't stay.


Today, the total number of days that ships are underway in the year is less than in the Cold War, but the problem for us, of course is that we've come down in size even as the requirements have come down. We kind of hit the bottom on requirements while the number of ships kept coming down. For the individual ship or individual Sailor, the time away from home in 1994 was greater than in the Cold War. We were spending less money as a nation, we had fewer ships under way, but we had a greater percentage of the smaller number under way.

We must do something about that. We can't let that continue.


I am a strong believer in OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO standards and limiting deployment lengths to six months or less. Six-month deployments and reasonable PERSTEMPO are not just humanitarian or social concerns, they're also readiness concerns. We simply can't deploy people too often or too long, or our most important ingredient to sustained readiness, our best Sailors, won't stay in the Navy.

A routine deployment in the US Navy will remain six months. The only time deployments may be longer will be in a situation that is so clear, like Desert Storm, where all of us can see and understand the reason for a longer deployment.

What does concern me is what we do between deployments with our current tempo of operations in the "local" area. Many things contribute to local ops, including drug interdiction operations, required underway training (unit and battle group) and inspections.


Our Navy-Marine Corps team was busy this past year. Not that that is anything new -- you have come to expect that of us. During 1995, we maintained an average of more than one hundred ships forward-deployed (that's 27% of all our ships), conducting contingency operations, presence missions, training, and multi-national operations with sixty-nine nations. These combat-ready, forward-deployed forces participated in a broad range of military operations, working jointly with our sister services, friends and allies in ocean areas as diverse as the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, the Pacific Rim, Baltic Sea, the littorals of South America and the Adriatic.


The importance of physical fitness in our Navy is obvious. We want to stress fitness through exercise and to use reasonable standards that are clearly defined.

I wanted a program that reflects commitment to Navy people and to mission accomplishment. The program update implemented in July 1994 was intended to enhance our program, encourage compliance, and provide for enforcement (when necessary) in a manner that everyone understands.

I wanted to put the emphasis on having people exercise in a good way and live healthier lives, without being punitive. There were a lot of questions about our measuring standards. I decided that I had heard enough concern about it and that it was driving the discussion. I wanted, instead, to drive the discussion over to exercising, eating right, and being healthy. The desired result is healthy, fit people who give 100% in the Navy. Our job is to ensure that they can do their job. Being healthy and fit means they can do it better.


When you do a long range plan like we are now working, one of the keys is that you don't fall in love with it so much that you don't keep revising it. I don't think it's ever finished. As you learn more, as you know more, you keep revising your plan. And instead of 2020 it becomes 2021, 2022 and so on. Maybe you only do it every couple of years, but you don't let it become stagnate because this world we live in isn't stagnate.


The government's not going to stop spending S&T and R&D money. The government needs to spend S&T and R&D money. And for those products where we are the only customer -- especially those that are very expensive -- we're going to have to participate in the development. Take an airplane, a new kind of ship, or a nuclear power plant. That's going to be a partnership.

But there are many dual use technologies where more risk and more assumption of the development needs to be taken by industry.

We have less money now and we can't develop every single thing using our own money. This is a partnership. Industry, the acquisition side of the government, and the requirement side (my part of it) have to work together to find the right answer for each particular procurement.

When you are financially unable to do everything you think you must do, you have to start figuring out how to get the job done within your fiscal resources.

QUALITY OF LIFE 12/1/95 INTERVIEW All Hands Magazine

Pay, housing, and medical care are very important. For example, I think it's time for us to seriously consider adopting VHA and BAQ for unmarried E-6's on sea duty. It's going to take a law change to do that, but it's something that must be considered.

We're putting more money into housing improvements than we ever have in the past and the Neighborhoods of Excellence Program is making improvements in housing areas and BEQs already. More needs to be done. But quality of life is more than these things. It's also being treated fairly on the job, having good leadership and top-notch equipment.

We have a lot of work to do to reach the level I believe Navy men and women deserve, but I think we're making progress.

READINESS 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Major Daily Newspapers

We need a Navy that is big enough to do what it's going to do, but not so big that we don't have some money left over to invest in the future. And we have to invest that money wisely.

I've got to balance today's readiness with future readiness. We must have an R&D and acquisition program that makes sense so we don't get too small and too old out there in the future.

READINESS 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Readiness is a extremely fragile commodity. It depends upon having adequate numbers of properly trained personnel. It depends upon having adequate numbers of capable ships and aircraft. And, of course, it depends upon keeping those ships and aircraft operable by conducting needed maintenance and having the required spare parts to repair emergent equipment failures.

READINESS 4/27/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee

We consider today's Readiness as a "must fund" issue.

Readiness is, as you know, and extremely fragile commodity. It depends upon having adequate numbers of properly trained personnel. It depends upon having adequate numbers of capable ships and aircraft. And, of course, it depends upon keeping those ships and aircraft operable by conducting needed maintenance and having the required spare parts to repair emergent equipment failures.

While overall I believe our readiness is sufficient today, there are storm signals in the air that in some individual areas we have stretched too far. For example, some of our aviation squadrons are stretched thin and we are working on necessary adjustments in personnel and training to improve their readiness to the right level.


Mid-term and long term readiness depends, of course, upon keeping the future force capable through introduction of new technology and introduction of new ships and aircraft.

While our focus has been on near-term readiness, we recognize that if we do not modernize at a higher rate we ultimately place future readiness at risk. In the past several years we have reduced ship procurement rates by 72% and aircraft procurements by 70%. That downward rate in procurement cannot continue.

A Navy that is too small and lacks the technological edge that will be necessary to fight and win in the future should not be the result of our necessary concentration on near-term readiness.


The bottom line is that one way to live with a reduced budget is to procure less and you can do that for a little while when you have a modern Navy, or modern force -- it's no different than a business. If you don't put some money into recapitalization eventually it will become obsolete and things will begin to phase out of the inventory because they don't work well anymore. They just get old, or can't keep up with the job they are supposed to do and eventually they not only become obsolete but they will become too small. You can't rely on not recapitalizing for very long.

We need a procurement budget that keeps us properly refreshed and capable. We don't want to become obsolete because in this business becoming obsolete means you lose. In the business we're in, which is the nation's business, you can't afford to lose. Some reduced procurement for awhile is an acceptable way to deal with small budgets but you have to think about what it means for the future.


This is a real concern of mine. Our naval forces are relatively modern, and equipped -- for the most part -- with newer systems. But as we continue to take down force structure -- older, less capable platforms and systems -- we must ensure that there is adequate and stable funding for our recapitalization plan, so that we don't carry forward a lot of bills each year. It is a complicated picture. I know that. And it will require substantial effort to keep it on track. I recognize that too. But with your support, I remain confident we can continue to provide our nation and our Navy people with the best tools to meet the security challenges that lie ahead.


Our recruiting has been tough. We have had a little resurgence this year. Recruiters are sending all the people into the Navy that we need, at the quality we need. In fact, the Navy leads the military this year -- but it's tough and it's something that we need to watch closely.

REDUNDANCY 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

I firmly believe that some redundancy is good. Forward-deployed forces are always the first to answer the call, so we must have capabilities of our own and then be able to transition them into a joint team. For example, it is very important that we have airplanes that can fly off carriers and operate from expeditionary airfields, that can help shape the battlefield at long distances, help achieve battlespace dominance and that can provide close air support as we project forces ashore. The Army and Air Force have similar requirements for aircraft.

We don't see these air squadrons and wings as unnecessarily redundant. Some redundancy adds operational flexibility, creates opportunities for the National Command Authorities and fosters the development of integrated, joint doctrine. When the heavy forces arrive and we are really in a big fight, it doesn't matter whose name is on the side of the aircraft. The JFACC (Joint Force Air Component Commander) uses all these assets on the joint battlefield.


One of the things I like least is organizational change or reorganizations. People tend to get all wound up in the reorganization and it takes them away from meaningful work.


I think most of the time reorganizations are just rearrangements of things. They don't get much better. They just get different. Not every reorganization would fit that mold, but I think a lot of people would agree that some of them are like that. They just change things. They don't always make it better, they make it different. And they take a lot of the energy and intellectual capital while you're fooling with it to try to get it right. I'm generally not looking for reorganization when we need to make a change.


We are going to have to manage our R&D money better. We have kept a pretty robust program. But dollars have to be spent as wisely as possible as budgets get smaller. That sounds so obvious, but sometimes it is hard to do. It can be particularly hard in R&D where every attempt cannot be expected to yield a payoff. You still need to look at each program and ask: "Am I satisfied we are putting enough money in an area where there is a potential payoff?"

The temptation is to get yourself so focused on near-term readiness that it is all you do. In that case, "x" years down the road, someone is going to be asking: ; "How come all these other navies and countries are able to do things we can't?"

RESERVES 9/18/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE Message to Navy Commanders

Total force is no longer a shorthand term to mean Reserves. In the Navy it truly means a single force, some of which is in the active component and some in the reserve component. That is simply good business. We are now in a situation where the active force alone is no longer large enough or has all the capabilities needed to get the day-to-day missions of the Navy accomplished. It takes all of each component, active and reserve, to get the work done.

RETENTION 4/04/95 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY National Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Readiness, today's readiness and that of the future, depends upon people. We have wonderful men and women in our Navy and I couldn't be prouder of them. They are smart, well trained and motivated. They have joined and stayed with us through the downsizing. However, if we don't treat them properly, if we don't provide them the quality of life they deserve, they will not stay with us over the long term.


Retention that matters is not going to be done by the Chief of Naval Operations. It's going to be accomplished by division officers, division chiefs, and leading chief petty officers who enjoy what they are doing. The job has sacrifices, there's no question about that; you have to create an environment where the pluses outweigh the minuses because there will always be minuses. You make the real difference on the deckplates.

We can have the best housing, good pay, good medical care, benefits, etc., but if Sailors hate what they're doing and don't want to come in to work every day, why in the world would they stay with us?


When I go aboard a ship and somebody is showing me their equipment and they say this is the "ship's" radar, or this is "the captain's" radar, or this is "Lt. Johnson's" space, I get one kind of a message from that. When I walk aboard another ship and a young Sailor comes to me and says "this is mine," I see that pride, and I get a very different message. I look around and see that the leaders feel the same way about what this person's saying. I know something is very right here. I see a lot more right than I see wrong. I'm seeing more and more of that in the Navy, and I think that is the way you affect retention.


I think it's a very bad precedent to set, to change people's retirement retroactively. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been done before. And to be quite honest, it's not fair. We're talking about people who have served 15 or more years, and have every right to believe that there was a contract with them about their retirement.


But there are many dual use technologies where more risk and more assumption of the development needs to be taken by industry.

ROLES AND MISSIONS 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

Fifty years from now we may still be operating under the roles and missions and responsibilities defined by Dr. White's commission. We have to get it right, not just for today's short-term objectives, but more importantly, for the long haul.

One point I stressed with the commission is that there is a timeless element in our role as America's forward presence force. We have an enduring vision of what we naval forces-and by that I mean the Navy and Marine Corps--do and how that contributes.

Fifty years from now we may well be looking at documents that are written in the next year or two just as we look at the Key West documents written in the late '40s. This is a new era of security. It's still evolving, but it may be like this for quite a while, so we better get it right.


I stayed in the Navy because I love going to sea. I hope everybody is experiencing that. If you're fortunate enough to be at the stage in your career where you still get to go to sea, relish it. Enjoy it and have fun. Realize that you are a part of a long line of people who have gone down to the sea in ships, and it's a special thing to do.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

I think there is no doubt that when people value people as contributors, as team members, as part of the Navy family, the chance for people being demeaned through sexual harassment or worse, sexual crime, gets smaller. It doesn't go to zero. It doesn't go to zero where you work, and it doesn't go to zero where I work. That's why we need to deal with cases quickly, effectively and fairly. But it does get better when people are accepted as equal partners in the work place.

Our work place is tougher, because our work place is, for a lot of people, also the place where they live. We need to be especially careful to be sure people understand what's expected and what their role is. I think that will improve as women go aboard ships, and as women do more things in our Navy.


Sexual harassment cases are difficult. They are handled better, except for the very involved ones, when they are handled as rapidly as possible. If the person really was harassed, it is difficult for them. If the person who was accused really didn't do it, it is difficult for them. And these cases are just better dealt with, including proceeding to the right and just conclusion, as early as possible. We wanted to encourage that, and we have. My feedback from the fleet is that it is working.

Sexual harassment will come up. It comes up in civilian life, and it will come up in the military from time to time. You'd like to say: "I will have no sexual harassment problems in the Navy." But to say that would be naive. You would like to be able to say that's the way it will be because of leadership efforts by the full spectrum of leaders, from the deck plates to the fleet commander to Washington.

Zero sexual harassment is never a guaranteed outcome. It's what we're shooting for, but we know we're not going to get it. We try to educate to get to zero, but when you don't get to zero, and an incident occurs, then you must deal with it in an appropriate way. We are building a system, a way of thinking about these things and dealing with them that will ensure that cases are dealt with fairly and quickly.


Right now, the Navy is in pretty good shape. We are getting modern equipment delivered. That defers the problem for awhile. The problem for us starts about the year 2001 or 2002, when we need to start replacing some of the ships that are reaching block obsolescence, such as the LPDs and Spruance-class destroyers. We will need to buy another aircraft carrier in order to stay at 12. We are going to need to procure the ships and the aircraft we have planned, or we won't have a ready Navy - we would have a Navy that is too small and too old.


We want to get more efficient and more effective at the same time. That is why we decided to have the smart ship, USS YORKTOWN. The reason for doing that was so that we could look for efficiencies and better ways of doing things. We want to try them out on a real ship where they needed to be tried out, especially those cases where solutions aren't intuitively so obvious you just want to do them. If they work, then we reduce the manpower ahead of workload and then end up with more workload being done by fewer people -- it's not fair to the people and it doesn't generate combat readiness. It generates unreadiness.

I want the smart ship to try things that need to be tried and tested. And if they work, install them, whether they are ideas, hardware or software, and then reduce the people -- not first.

What am I looking for with the smart ship? I'd like to have fewer people on ships and still do the job just as well. I'd also like to have an improving or continuous quality improvement in what we do. Some things will just be better and not save people. Other things may save people. There may be a category of things we can do that saves people AND do it better. We'll be looking at those investments and what it means.

STRATEGIC SEALIFT 11/17/94 SPEECH Heritage Foundation Address

Strategic sealift is important. In the end sealift is one of the most necessary enabling functions naval forces provide for large-scale projection of U.S. combat power, something most recently witnessed in Operation Desert Shield. What most people don't know is that several military capabilities are required to protect strategic sealift. These capabilities include air support, shallow water anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare and theater ballistic missile defense.


The new SSG Fellows have been selected and notified. Retired Admiral Jim Hogg will become the director of the SSG in August. They will be looking at innovation in Naval warfare in what, I trust, will be an innovative way. The charter for this year's SSG is to work, under Jim's guidance, to review the potential for warfighting gains in the decades ahead based on postulated, as well as proven, technological change. The methodology the SSG will use will become clearer as the SSG Fellows report to Newport and begin their work.


This is truly trying to think of new concepts, new ways to use technology that we don't have today. I would not feel this was a success if they produced studies, or the requirement for studies. That's not what we're looking for here. If that were the case we would simply go out and say we need a better communication system in the year umpty-fratz, and then you'd find the communication system people and they would go work on it. This isn't like that at all. I would like this to flow into real work, real development, and real fielding of things. Otherwise we've not spent our time well.


Soon the Toledo will begin practicing for its mission of deploying and meeting the new and varied threats of our post-cold war era. She combines the awesome firepower of her vertically launched tomahawk cruise missiles with the endurance and stealth of a nuclear powered submarine. This combination provides an unparalleled ability to deter aggression in all regions of the globe. Her other many capabilities include surveillance, special warfare operations, and covert harbor mining to name just a few. Further, she does this with maximum flexibility and with a minimum commitment of resources and people providing this nation with an awesome deterrent.

At a time when many of our nation's land forces are redeploying to the continental united states from their garrisons overseas, naval forces are rapidly becoming the primary military component on the nation's forward presence strategy.


The F/A-18E/F, which is a much improved F/A-18, is about 80 percent totally new. Although I can't tell you the specifics in an unclassified publication, I can say it is much, much harder to see on radar than its predecessor. It has much better carrying capacity and longer range. It has the latest technology in the cockpit. The first Super Hornet was delivered on time and on cost. It's also 1000 pounds underweight, which is very good for an airplane at this stage of development. Being underweight gives us room to make changes.

This aircraft has a lot of carrying capability, and it also is capable of refueling other airplanes of the same type. That gives us a tanker -- and a fighter. It can serve as a self-tanker and a tanker for the fighters. It can carry bombs and all the precision-guided weapons that we have and are going to develop in the near future. This aircraft will come off the assembly line capable of using them. And it is a good fighter, all at the same time.

SUPER HORNET (F/A-18E/F) 3/12/96 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY SASC opening statement for FY97 budget

Unquestionably, it will be the backbone of naval aviation strike warfare. Several years ago, we decided to build upon the marvelous success of the F/A-18 and make it better. I'm pleased to report that the new and improved F/A-18E/F flew for the first time this past November and that the program is on schedule and within cost. This year's budget request includes low rate production funding for the first 12 of these aircraft. The E/F will have greater range, carry a more flexible payload, and have room for improved avionics that will increase its ability to conduct night strikes, close air strikes, close air support, fighter escort, air interdiction and fleet air defense. Eventually, the Super Hornet will constitute the majority of strike fighter assets on aircraft carriers and complement the Joint Strike Fighter.

SURFACE COMBATANT (SC 21) 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

It might ultimately make good sense for the SC 21 design to be further evolution of Arleigh Burke, just as Arleigh Burke was an evolution of Ticonderoga, but I don't want to preclude the idea that this design might be something totally different.

We are at a very early phase in the design process. We don't want to limit our options or restrict new ideas. Right now my hope for SC 21 is that we continue the efforts of many very smart, inventive and experienced surface warriors, and others, who are looking at exactly what we want this ship to do. We need to think a lot more about that before we start to draw the plans.


I think firepower is the first thing I want to see in the next generation surface combatant. I think we've learned that. The kind of ships we are building today, the ARLEIGH BURKE class and the AEGIS cruisers before it, the submarines we are now building, they are all ships that are able to take the fight to an enemy.

They allowed us to tell Saddam Hussein, "If you go to Kuwait, we'll go to Baghdad," with our Tomahawk missiles and our F/A-18s and other Navy aircraft.

The next generation warship is going to require a big offensive punch to continue that emphasis. We are not just defending ourselves. We will take the fight to the other guy.

I'm also looking for a ship that is less manpower intensive. I think that automation should allow us to reduce our dependence on people to do everything. Then we can have people to do the things that only people can do. I'm looking for a good degree of automation without taking people out of the loop.

Finally, I'm looking for something that we can afford to build. We cannot price ourselves out of the market. We must be careful to design a good ship that we can afford to run, and that we can also afford to purchase.

This is hard work. We're looking at many designs and concepts. We're not ready to do it yet. In the meantime we're building a really good ship in the ARLEIGH BURKE class. It's a great ship, and we'll keep producing them for quite a while longer.


This consolidation helps offset the cost of five proposed Navy F/A-18 squadrons which were eliminated by budget cuts, thus avoiding approximately $700 million in procurement costs and $300 million per year in operating expenses.

This agreement allows both Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons to be scheduled to satisfy either Navy carrier air wing or Marine Corps deployment commitments.

TAILHOOK 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

It would be a big mistake for me to say I want to put Tailhook behind us because there are a lot of lessons to be learned from it. If we don't learn them, we're doomed to repeat them. I'm not going to put Tailhook behind us that way. But when cases go to trial, and they are finished after so many investigations, we need to learn the lessons and get on with making things better. That's where I'm going to focus my time because that's where I can make a difference.

TECHNOLOGY / PEOPLE 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Our strength has always been technology and people, but in just the opposite order. Good, smart, motivated people who are well-trained will take the technological edge and make it even better.

TECHNOLOGY / TBMD 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

Our technological developments are moving right along, and they must be. We can't lose sight of what is happening in the rest of world with the proliferation of high-tech weapons and we will continue to depend upon our technology to stay ahead of the threats.

Theater ballistic missiles will only get more accurate over time. They will only go further and become harder to see. For all these reasons, our enthusiasm should be tempered with the understanding that we must continue to depend upon our advancing technology to keep ahead of this growing threat.


We believe the Navy has a primary role in theater ballistic missile defense. This capability would give us a mobile and versatile defensive umbrella to protect sea-based and land forces as we project power ashore. What we bring to the table is the fact that we already have the lift capability for these missiles, and the launchers and weapon control systems are already built and paid for.

Admittedly, other systems used by follow-on forces are important. But, without a naval TBMD capability, the conduct of a joint littoral campaign becomes increasingly difficult, will require more resources and will cost more in terms of sea and airlift, Navy ships, Army, Air Force and Marine supplies, and most importantly, American lives. Navy TBMD has the additional advantage of being independent of strategic lift. This is significant when you consider how many people clamor for heavy lift as a crisis comes into being.


The technology of theater ballistic missiles will only move in one direction: toward longer ranges, greater accuracy, and more lethality. That's how weapons evolve. As a nation we must be able to shoot down these things.

I don't think it is too parochial to say that I believe that Navy has a potential capability that the nation needs. We've already bought the launcher system. It's in the aegis-equipped cruisers and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which are vertical launch capable and will be able to fire the missile that can shoot down scuds or their follow-ons.

Our ships can do that without a need for foreign permission to bring our systems ashore. That's very important. And we're well along in our ability to do this.

I believe we also need land-based systems for this mission. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket, and we may even need an air-based system such as a boost-phase intercept. We need this capability urgently, and we should be trying every avenue to get it.

Sealift and airlift need ports and airfields so the army and air force units can get land-based systems into theater. It may mean marine forces going ashore first to establish the lodgements we need. Since we expect these scuds (or follow-on) to be very accurate, we need a way to shoot them down while our land-based systems are getting in place.

If we're going to rely on sealift and airlift to deliver our people, then we'd better have a way to handle this missile threat while we're still at sea-at least at the beginning of the fight. It's time for us to get on with our system, and we're doing that.

TOMAHAWK 11/1/94 INTERVIEW Surface Warfare Magazine

The number of Tomahawk ships in an area and what types of missiles they carry are questions that usually get asked right away in any crisis or mission planning, and the people who ask them understand the full meaning of the answer.

Tomahawk is a weapons system whose day has come. If you look at what we've been doing lately - Iraq is a great case in point -- you can better understand the prominent role it plays. Tomahawk, however, is only part of our overall power projection capability. It doesn't replace manned aircraft flying off the carrier. The entire Navy package is an important part of what makes the United States the world's only true superpower.

Surface warriors ought to be proud that we are now contributing to the offensive power of the Navy in ways that we didn't ten years ago. Nobody can say an Aegis cruiser or destroyer just defends itself and the ships close to it. Our ships can reach out and touch an enemy in ways that are very real.

TQL 7/3/95 MESSAGE/CORRESPONDENCE CNO Message to Navy Commanders

I am convinced that we are headed in the right direction with TQL. Instead of long messages from me talking about support for this program, what you are seeing is continuing training, folding in TQL training and education into other leadership curricula, and a steady evolution of TQL in the way we do business. When TQL becomes the way we do our work, the way we think about improving our processes, the way leaders accomplish leadership tasks, the method by which we get the best from our people by empowering them to think, plan, do, monitor and correct their work, then TQL will truly be successful in our Navy. It will not survive as a "special" program. It will thrive as an integral part of everything we do.

I want each of you to continue to support TQL by encouraging training, by providing quality training and by making it a routine part of business and leadership. For example, TQL will be a part of every leadership course developed under the new Navy leadership courses. The long term transition to a TQL mentality in our Navy requires your support, active participation and -- probably most important -- recognition by each of you when it produces quality results. We are on the right course. Help keep us there.

TQL 11/30/95 SPEECH Navy Command Leadership Course, Newport, RI

I believe in TQL enough that I wanted it put into a leadership course -- a real leadership course, like this one.

TRICARE 3/21/95 SPEECH CNO address to SECNAV's Committee on Retired Personnel

I'm firmly committed to ensuring that there is no reduction or degradation in the current level of health care benefits afforded to retirees and their families. Because of downsizing and base closures, DOD and the services are transitioning to managed care concepts in our medical system.

The Tricare program is a "triple option", managed care program, which includes nominal enrollment and user fees for non-active duty beneficiaries. Out-of-pocket medical costs will be reduced for the majority of our beneficiaries. The three options of the program are called: Tricare Prime, Tricare Extra, and Tricare Standard.


You have a job to do here. Many people think that this is a place where you learn to get a degree and have professional competence. Others think that this is a place that you go to have military professional competence. I think that these are both true. This is a place where you come to grow. But grow is the operative word. You aren't a finished product yet. And how you turn out is all important.

You do more for leadership in the fleet than you can ever know. The average young man and woman who goes through another commissioning program doesn't have the kind of opportunity that you have right now. When you leave here with one big stripe, you will be a scene setter, a tone setter, a pace setter wherever you go and people who have not had the advantage of what you've been exposed to will know less than you do. We need you, you are important to us and this institution is important to me.


They were probably better heavy weather Sailors than anyone I know. They understood what it was like to go into really rough seas, in a pretty small ship and get the job done. Of course their commendation was long over-due.

The lesson I learned, and that I hope most people would learn, is that it couldn't happen now. What happened to the crew of USS MASON was another type of segregation, but it was also was an opportunity in those days. Today it would be seen as something that was wrong. I also think it shows the progress that we have made since we are all people on the same team now. We are no longer trying to do things like we had to do in World War II when we didn't quite understand.


We are all about fighting and winning. And we're all about taking care of each other when we do. Taking care of each other on the ship, ashore, and the Navy taking care of your families and you, that's what we're all about.

Everything else comes after that unless it contributes.

It has to make the Navy better able to fight and win. It has to be something that is truly better for the people and help them do what I just said, and have a better career while doing it.


Warfighting is what we do. We are professional warriors. I think for us, as warriors, we must remember what it is we are all about. The questions I want our people to think about are "What are we all about?" and "What is most important?"

Our contribution to the nation is fighting and winning at sea and from the sea. Everything we do has must contribute to that. That's why we worry about quality of life. Close attention to quality-of-life issues will ensure good people will stay with us, and their families will feel good about being part of the Navy family.

Everything we do is intended to produce combat readiness and combat units that can fight and win. We have to keep that foremost in our mind.

WOMEN AT SEA 5/9/95 INTERVIEW Navy/Marine Corps News

We're moving along according to our schedule. Women are responding. We are having no trouble getting women recruits and getting women to understand that being in the Navy now means going to sea. It means doing what Sailors do -- get underway, fly airplanes, deploy, and do tough jobs overseas as well. It hasn't been a problem for us to get people who want to come into the Navy and do exactly that.

Within the Navy, deployments are now taking place in a Navy-team way, with women as fully contributing members of combatants, air wings, and squadrons flying airplanes -- throughout the Navy.

I wouldn't tell the people in the Navy or anyone else that this is without problems. Any major change requires that we adapt, and as we see issues come up, we deal with them in a straight forward and smart way. As we are doing this integration, and we are well along the way now, we're finding out that the problems that we are experiencing are problems that we can deal with. They are problems that good people working together can solve. I think we are in great shape for this point in the process. Reports from ships returning from deployment are that people, all people in the Navy, truly do contribute the best they can and that crews do integrate well, once we just get them to change.

WOMEN IN COMBAT 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

The only question now is how quickly we can do it, and do it correctly. We want to go as quickly as we can, consistent with getting it right the first time.


NRA Junior Officer Symposium The idea of what the ship is doing -- whether it's going to be in combat or not -- is not an issue. The Congress made that not an issue with the law they passed, and I agree with the law they passed. If I didn't agree with the law they passed, I wouldn't be here. I don't mean that I agree with they law passed just so I could be here. I believe that we are doing the right thing.


I do not foresee men and women bunking together, sleeping side-by-side on ships. Not only don't I foresee that, that will not happen on ships while I'm CNO. Ships are a very close environment. It's difficult enough living on ships, and people deserve their privacy. We give them precious little privacy anyway and we will not violate that by mixing sexes.

WOMEN IN SUBMARINES 5/3/94 INTERVIEW Wires Services, News Services, Weekly News Magazines & Radio

We're looking at submarines and submarine missions. When you require someone to live inside of a tube and have to consider privacy needs over long periods, it may be difficult. We've looked at that. We're going to look at it again. We're going to look at it hard.

WOMEN IN SUBMARINES (NSSN) 9/15/95 SPEECH Navy Reserve Junior Officer Symposium

The New Attack Submarine is about the size of the 688 or smaller inside because it's going to have a lot of equipment, and it's going to have a big torpedo room, but that's about it. I'm committed to putting -- and I think I've made that clear by what I've done, not just what I've said -- women on all the ships where we can provide privacy for them that they deserve and that the men deserve. I don't believe that on a submarine we can provide that kind of privacy unless we design a submarine that is very different than the small, tactical package I want inside. So until we can do that, I'm not going to.

Now women's opportunities to be in Navy Nuclear Power, just about anything they want, are not being impeded. We now have more billets for women than we have women who volunteer. Equal opportunity is equal -- right? I'm looking at the ladies here, and they are all nodding yes. That's what equal opportunity means. You get an equal opportunity to do the good stuff and the hard stuff. But they have to come into the Navy first before we can volunteer them. So right now, we have more opportunity than we have people, and that's good. By the way, Nuclear Power is wide open right now. All you have to do is meet the goal.

WOMEN (PREGNANCY) 10/1/94 INTERVIEW Sea Power Magazine

Women in the Navy don't get pregnant in larger percentages than their same-age counterparts in the population at large. However, pregnancy can be disruptive to readiness on a unit getting ready to deploy tomorrow.

We need to think about it as a health issue. As we get more and more women at sea, we need to be very, very sure that we have the right kind of health care, and we don't put them unnecessarily at risk. All of these considerations need to be looked at. We have a good policy right now and every change we make should be an improvement -- not just a change.

Reviewed: 31 July 2009



Shared publicly  - 
<AS%19> for me...One last thing is almost finished. For my <PENULTIMATE> Sitting Order, <PRI><X><OR> to the <LAST> <1> one scheduled for <24_DEC> via USS Z.J Loussac, Boron's Watch Officer: "+1: Dönitz succeeded Adolf Hitler as the head of state of Germany. +0: (Regarding Seawolves) The class was the intended successor to the Los Angeles class. *(Due to the end of the Cold War and budget constraints, it was informally renamed by The United States Intelligence Community as, "The Port Townsend Class.")

*Addendum: </1>

END/Transferred certain functions from the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to the Secretary of Commerce as part of the implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.

[Executive Order No. 11,609, 3 C.F.R. xx (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 6296, and in 35 Fed. Reg. 15801 (1970)]


By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 12 of the Act of February 1, 1903, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1517) and section 12 (d) of the Act of October 15, 1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651 note), as President of the United States , and in further implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 transferring certain functions to the Secretary of Commerce and establishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. (a) The following programs and activities are hereby transferred to the Secretary of Commerce:

(1) The National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

(2) The National Oceanographic Data Center of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

(3) The Ocean Station Vessel Meteorological Program of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

(4) The Trust Territories Upper Air Observation Program of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

(5) The Hydroclimatic Network Program of the Corps of Engineers of the Department of the Army , Department of Defense.

(6) The National Data Buoy Development Project of the Coast Guard, Department of Transportation.

(b) All of the power and authority of the transferor Departments conferred by law which is related to or incidental to, in support of, or necessary for, the operation of programs and activities transferred by subsection (a) above, may be utilized by the Secretary of Commerce for the operation of those programs and activities.
Sec. 2. (a) Such personnel and positions and so much of the property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, authorized, affected, available, or to be made available in connection with the operation of the programs and activities transferred by section 1 hereof from the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall determine shall be transferred from those Departments to the Department of Commerce at such time or times as the Director shall direct.
(b) Subject to the direction of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the appropriate officers of the Government shall make necessary administrative arrangements for the assumption by the Secretary of Commerce of the programs and activities so transferred.

By Direction,
General Eisenhower

Hon. Charles F. Eisenbeis
The Red House, Port Townsend

October 6, 1970.

[F.R. Doc. 70-13596; Filed, Oct. 7, 1970; 8:51 a.m.]

Mappa Mundi's profile photoMOSAIC ECONOMY's profile photo


Shared publicly  - 
This day is done. 16:22 @141/122 West Longitude.
MOSAIC ECONOMY's profile photo
Christianity in Contrast With Mosaic Economy
Article download …1111x2249

By:Charles Henry Mackintosh
From:Christian Truth
Volume 25

We shall place before the reader, a passage or two of Scripture in which the moral glories of Christianity shine forth with peculiar luster, in vivid contrast to the entire Mosaic economy. First of all, let us take that familiar passage at the opening of the 8th of Romans, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." vv. 1-4.

Now, we must bear in mind that verse 1 sets forth the standing of every Christian-his position before God. He is "in Christ Jesus." This settles everything. He is not in the flesh; he is not under law; he is absolutely and eternally "in Christ Jesus." Hence there is-there can be-no condemnation. The Apostle is not speaking of or referring to our walk or our state. If he were, he could not possibly speak of "no condemnation." The most perfect Christian walk that ever was exhibited, the most perfect Christian state that ever was attained, would afford some ground for judgment and condemnation. There is not a Christian on the face of the earth who has not, daily, to judge his state and his walk-his moral condition and his practical ways. How then could "no condemnation" ever stand connected with, or be based upon, Christian walk? Utterly impossible. In order to be free from all condemnation, we must have what is divinely perfect, and no Christian walk is or ever was that. Even a Paul had to withdraw his words (Acts 23:5). He repented of having written a letter (2 Cor. 7:8). A perfect walk and a perfect state were only found in One. In all beside-even the holiest and best-failure is found.

According to the most accurate translations, the second clause of Rom. 8:1 is not in the original manuscript; it is not Scripture. This, we think, would be seen by anyone really taught of God, apart from all question of mere criticism. Any spiritual mind would detect the incongruity between the words "no condemnation" and "walk." The two things cannot be made to harmonize. And here, we doubt not, is just where thousands of pious souls have been plunged into difficulty as to this really magnificent and emancipating passage. The joyful sound, "no condemnation," has been robbed of its deep, full, and blessed significance by a clause introduced by some scribe or copyist whose feeble vision was, doubtless, dazzled by the brightness of that free, absolute, sovereign grace which shines in the opening statement of the chapter. How often have we heard such words as these, "Oh! yes; I know there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. But this is if they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Now I cannot say that I walk thus. I long to do so, and I mourn over my failure. I would give worlds to be able to walk more perfectly; but, alas! I have to judge myself- my state, my walk, my ways, each day, each hour. This being so, I dare not apply to myself the precious words, 'no condemnation.' I hope to be able to do so some day, when I have made more progress in personal holiness; but, in my present state, I should deem it the very height of presumption to appropriate to myself the precious truth contained in the first clause of Romans 8."
Such thoughts as these have passed through the minds of most of us, if they have not been clothed in words. But the simple and conclusive answer to all such legal reasonings is found in the fact that the second clause of Rom. 8:1 is not in the original text at all, but a very misleading interpolation, foreign to the spirit and genius of Christianity; opposed to the whole line of argument in the context where it occurs; and utterly subversive of the solid peace of the Christian.

We cannot but think that the occurrence of the clause, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," in verse 4, affords abundant evidence of its misplacement in verse 1. We cannot for a moment admit the thought of redundancy in Holy Scripture. Now, in verse 4, it is a question of walk- a question of our fulfilling "the righteousness of the law"; and hence the clause is in its right, because divinely fitted, place. A person who walks in the Spirit-as every Christian ought-fulfills the righteousness of the law. Love is the fulfilling of the law; and love will lead us to do what the ten commandments could never effect; namely, to love our enemies. No lover of holiness, no advocate of practical righteousness, need ever be the least afraid of losing aught by abandoning the legal ground, and taking his place on the elevated platform of true Christianity-by turning from mount Sinai to mount Zion-by passing from Moses to Christ. No; he only reaches a higher source, a deeper spring, a wider sphere of holiness, righteousness, and practical obedience.

And then, if anyone should feel disposed to ask, "Does not the line of argument which we have been pursuing tend to rob the law of its characteristic glory?" We reply, Most assuredly not. So far from this, the law was never so magnified, never so vindicated, never so established, never so glorified, as by that precious work which forms the imperishable foundation of all the privileges, the blessings, the dignities, and the glories of Christianity. The blessed Apostle anticipates and answers this very question in the earlier part of his epistle to the Romans. "Do we then," he says, "make void the law by faith? Far be the thought: no, but we establish the law." Chap. 3:31; J.N.D. Trans. How could the law be more gloriously vindicated, honored, and magnified than in the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ? Will anyone seek, for a moment, to maintain the extravagant notion that it is magnifying the law to put Christians under it? We fondly trust the reader will not. Ah! no; all this line of things must be completely abandoned by those whose privilege it is to walk in the light of the new creation; who know Christ as their life, and Christ as their, righteousness-Christ, their sanctification; Christ, their great Exemplar; Christ, their model; Christ, their all in all; who find their motive for obedience not in the fear of the curses of a broken law, but in the love of Christ, according to those exquisitely beautiful words, "The love of Christ"-not the law of Moses" constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again." 2 Cor. 5:14, 15.

Could the law ever produce anything like this? Impossible. But, blessed forever be the God of all grace, "What the law could not do"-not because it was not holy, just, and good, but-"in that it was weak through the flesh"-the workman was all right, but the material was rotten, and nothing could be made of it; but, "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who"-as risen with Christ, linked with Him by the Holy Ghost, in the power of a new and everlasting life "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

This, and only this, is true, practical Christianity; and if the reader will turn to the 2nd of Galatians, he will find another of those fine, glowing utterances of the blessed Apostle, setting forth, with divine force and fullness, the special glory of Christian life and walk. It is in connection with his faithful rebuke of the Apostle Peter, at Antioch, when that beloved and honored servant of Christ, through his characteristic weakness, had been led to step down for a moment from the elevated moral ground on which the gospel of the grace of God places the soul. We cannot do better than quote the entire paragraph for the reader. Every sentence of it is pregnant with spiritual power. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face"—he did not go behind his back to disparage and depreciate him, in the view of others, even though"He was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid [or, far be the thought]. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." For, if the things were right, why destroy them? And, if they were wrong, why build them again? "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live" not by the law, as a rule of life, but "by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain [or has died for nothing]." vv. 11-21.
Here then we have one of the very finest statements of the truth as to practical Christianity, anywhere to be found. But what specially claims our attention just now is the very marked and beautiful way in which the gospel of God opens up the path of the true believer between the two fatal errors of legality, on the one side, and carnal laxity, on the other. Verse 19, in the passage just quoted, contains the divine remedy for both these deadly evils. To all-whoever or wherever they are who would seek to put the Christian under the law, in any shape or for any object whatsoever-our Apostle exclaims in the ears of dissembling Jews with Peter at their head, and as an answer to all the law-teachers of every age, "I... am dead to the law."

What can the law have to say to a dead man? Nothing. The law applies to a living man, to curse him and kill him, because he has not kept it. It is a very grave mistake indeed to teach that the law is dead or abolished. It is nothing of the sort. It is alive in all its force, in all its stringency, in all its majesty, in all its unbending dignity. It would be a very serious mistake to say that the law of England, against murder, is dead. But if a man is dead, the law no longer applies to him, inasmuch as he has passed entirely out of its range.
But how is the believer dead to law? The Apostle replies, "I through the law am dead to the law." The law has brought the sentence of death into his conscience, as we read in Romans 7. "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me."

But there is more than this. The Apostle goes on to say, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." And here is the triumphant answer of the Christian to those who say that, inasmuch as the Mosaic law is abrogated, there is no longer any demand for the legal restraint under which the Jews were called to live. To all who would seek liberty for self-indulgence, the answer is, "I... am dead to the law," not that I might give a loose rein to the flesh, but "that I might live unto God."

Thus nothing can be more complete, nothing more morally beautiful, than the answer of true Christianity to legality on the one hand, and licentiousness on the other. Self crucified; sin condemned; new life in Christ; a life to be lived to God; a life of faith in the Son of God; the motive spring of that life, the constraining love of Christ. What can exceed this? Will any one, in view of the moral glories of Christianity, contend for putting believers under the law, putting them back into the flesh-back into the old creation-back to the sentence of death in the conscience-back to bondage, darkness, distance, fear of death, condemnation? Is it possible that any one who has ever tasted, even in the very feeblest measure, the heavenly sweetness of God's most blessed gospel, can accept the wretched mongrel system, composed of half law and half grace, which Christendom offers to the soul? How terrible to find the children of God, members of the body of Christ, temples of the Holy Ghost, robbed of their glorious privileges and burdened with a heavy yoke which, as Peter says, "Neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." We earnestly entreat the Christian reader to consider what has been placed before him. Search the Scriptures; and if you find these things to be so, then fling aside forever the grave clothes in which Christendom enwraps its deluded votaries, and walk in the liberty wherewith Christ makes His people free; tear off the bandage with which it covers the eyes of men, and gaze on the moral glories which shine with such heavenly brilliancy in the gospel of the grace of God.

And then let us prove by a holy, happy, gracious walk and conversation, that grace can do what law never could. Let our practical ways from day to day, in the midst of the scenes, circumstances, relationships, and associations in which we are called to live, be the most convincing reply to all who contend for the law as a rule of life.
Finally, let it be our earnest, loving desire and aim to seek, in so far as in us lies, to lead all the dear children of God into a clearer knowledge of their standing and privileges in a risen and glorified Christ. May the Lord send out His light and His truth in the power of the Holy Ghost, and gather His beloved people round Himself to walk in the joy of His salvation, in the purity and light of His presence, and to wait for His coming...AGAIN. and AGAIN...und NOT AGAIN.

Christian Truth: Volume 25
Book download …

First pagePrevious pageNext pageLast page
• Alliance With Enemies
• Apostle's Prayer for the Philippians
• At His Feet
• Be Occupied With Christ
• Bible, The: The Universal Book
• Breakdown, A: King Asa
• Christ for Us
• Christ in the Vessel: Mark 4:35-41
• Christ — Unselfishness: The World — Selfishness
• Christianity in Contrast With Mosaic Economy
• Defeat, Lessons in: Part 1
• Defeat, Lessons in: Part 2
• Deliverance From the Power of Sin
• Depth of Desire
• Encouragement for Trying Circumstances
• Endurance in Service
• Enjoyment
• Eternal Life: What the Scripture Says About it
• Faith of Joshua and Caleb, The
• First Adam and Second Adam Contrast
• First Years of Christianity, The: Christianity Begun
• First Years of Christianity, The: Church, Ministry, Doctrine
• First Years of Christianity, The: Doctrines and Righteousness
• First Years of Christianity, The: Effects of Gospel
• First Years of Christianity, The: Facts and Fruits of Paul
• First Years of Christianity, The: First State of the Church
• First Years of Christianity, The: Four Gospels
• First Years of Christianity, The: Gospel of the Glory
• First Years of Christianity, The: Order of Preaching
• First Years of Christianity, The: Promise of Holy Spirit
First pagePrevious pageNext pageLast page


Shared publicly  - 
Todays #StateGridAlaska Homeland Security Fusion Center Notice of the Day: Reference, "I knew a butterfly 28-years ago who was taken up, not sure whether it was in spirit or body, but I know for sure God does."
Ball's Antarctic Tundra Beetle was small and brown, and it has been extinct for millions of years. The scientists who discovered it named it in honor of another beetle scientist's 90th birthday.
MOSAIC ECONOMY's profile photo
#StateGridAlaska #GoodTimeEvolution #TwoDaughters
16 December 2016
(diff | hist) . . r Fortnight‎; 01:02 . . (-3)‎ . . ‎ (talk)‎
(diff | hist) . . Talk:Structure and agency‎; 00:39 . . (+841)‎ . . ‎Musicwriter (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Interpersonal harmony: new section) - Beringia Capstone - About - Google+


Shared publicly  - you still want to rely on screaming preachers OR go back to the reality of The Design of God the Creator and those who are working as #ServantLeaders to insure that the knowledge of #HISSON is understood.

Do you understand?

Respectfully, #TheDoorkeepers


Shared publicly  - ask thyselves the two questions. Now see one from a different point Dexter of view...umm methinks, perhaps a, "You See Duck" "I See Rabbit" will come to mind in a McLean sort of VA way. If this is true, then Good On You, you learned yourself something this morning Representative Nunez. Gracias por todo. Feliz Navidad! Closing Remarks: Je maintiendrai/Xref: About 144,000 results (0.51 seconds). P.S, I'm standing down for Christmas Break as of 1400 today. Mr. President Elect, you have the Floor. To the Crew: I retain the Chair!

From the Candy Desk: Have a Nice day from the Office of the Original Wizards of Langley. Bye, you can go now Senators.

All my best,
1 vote  -  votes visible to Public


Shared publicly  - 
On coming full circle against the Tide....We dared to dance that tide, just knowing and remembering to keep ourselves between the shore whenever of altruistic stay in the Arena and defeat Tyrant and Tyrant alike...Today, we have beaten the Last Enemy, "Our Old Selves." No more shall any Cold & Timid Soul have say over those who have fought the unseen and seen enemies of Life, Liberty and Our Persuit of Happiness. For today, both Spirit and Letter of Law is United against those standing outside Our Arena, for although our despair is great, they who speak from the outside the arena walls remain unknowing of either Victory or Defeat, for they are truly those who will never know...what being known as "Citizen" and "Centurion" by his fellows is truly the Only Solemn Honor the, "Man In The Arena" seeks. In such, he brings Honor to the Arena Itself.


Shared publicly  - 
FISH #155: Plan of Strategic Management: CNTN_ID=122 (Beringia Capstone, Harvard Extension School 2017; Ronald Raymond-Langley et al. 1987-2016)
NSF's mission is to advance the progress of science, a mission accomplished by funding proposals for research and education made by scientists, engineers, and educators from across the country.


Shared publicly  - 

Review: Silver Economy in the Viking Age

James Graham-Campbell and Gareth Williams, eds. Silver Economy in the Viking Age. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, 2007. Hb., 240 pp., b/w illustrations throughout. ISBN 978-1-59874-222-0. $89.00.

The Vikings have long been an early medieval cultural group in need of an image consultant. In recent decades, they have been cast variously by scholars and in popular culture as either bloodthirsty sea raiders out of a Robert E. Howard novel (a characterization that goes back to the Anglo-Saxon chronicles) or as more restrained international salesmen, traveling the waterways of Europe to reach their clientele. As Susan E. Kruse points out in her contribution to the present volume, these are extreme views that have resulted from the swinging of the pendulum of scholarly opinion. Viking culture(s) and Scandinavian involvement in international trade are far more complex and nuanced than the scholarly and popular stereotypes would suggest. Silver Economy in the Viking Age, based on papers presented at a symposium at the Institute of Archaeology (UCL) on May 26–27, 2000, approaches the use of silver from a variety of archaeological, numismatic, metrological, textual, and anthropological angles in order to expand the ongoing dialogue (and in some cases fan the flames of controversy) regarding this facet of the Viking Age.

The collection opens with D. M. Metcalf’s “Regions Around the North Sea with a Monetized Economy in the Pre-Viking and Viking Ages,” which provides an excellent overview and interpretation of ninth- and tenth-century coin finds in Anglo-Saxon England. This paper is especially important, as it strongly challenges Henri Pirenne’s influential thesis, which argues that the English economy (and that of northwestern Europe in general) was not heavily monetized outside of the great estates and trade centers prior to the eleventh century but was somehow stimulated by the disruption of the Viking incursions. On the contrary, Metcalf makes a good argument for extensive monetization in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and suggests that if anything, the Viking presence severely hampered international trade, leading to a decline in coin production and usage in the tenth century.

Brita Malmer revisits the controversy over the dating and location(s) of minting for early Danish coinage in “South Scandinavian Coinage in the Ninth Century.” Here she takes issue with Metcalf’s influential view that the eighth-century Wodan/monster sceattas were produced at Ribe rather than in Frisia (see “A Note on Sceattas as a Measure of International Trade, and on the Earliest Danish Coinage,” in Sceattas in England and on the Continent, ed. D. Hill and D. M. Metcalf [Oxford, 1984]: 159–164) and presents a good case for closely linking the die combination groups KG 3–6 to the Carolingian denier of the 820s. This would make KG 3, minted at Hedeby, the earliest known Scandinavian coin emission. Despite the find evidence, which shows two discrete areas of type circulation in Schleswig-Holstein and southern Jutland, Malmer resists the explicit identification of the mints responsible for Danish coinage in the ninth and tenth centuries as Hedeby and Ribe.

The economic role of the early local coinage and foreign coins in Scandinavia is treated by Ralf Wiechmann in “Hedeby and Its Hinterland: A Local Numismatic Region.” The bulk of this article is taken up by a thorough review of the hoard and individual coin finds from the eighth through tenth centuries in Schleswig-Holstein, Angeln, and Schwansen, leading to the conclusion that the coinage of Hedeby was aimed primarily at supporting domestic rather than foreign trade, ultimately bringing an end to the use of hack-silver and greatly reducing the numbers of foreign coin finds around Hedeby in the tenth century.

“The Evidence of Pecking on Coins from the Cuerdale Hoard: Summary Version” by Marion M. Archibald briefly comments on the Viking practice of coin pecking (testing silver quality by observing the resistance of the metal to the blade of a knife). Using the heavily pecked material in the Cuerdale hoard as her study sample, she argues that coin pecking was used to check the metal quality of unfamiliar or suspicious coin types. As pecking only occurs later in Scandinavia but is well known from Viking Dublin already in c. 830, it is suggested that the practice developed there and was brought to non-coin-producing areas of England and Scandinavia by individuals with Hiberno-Norse connections.

Mark Blackburn puts Anglo-Saxon silver into the larger framework of precious metal use and exchange in the Viking Age by discussing “Gold in England During the ‘Age of Silver’ (Eighth–Eleventh Centuries).” In this masterful paper, the author uses the copious documentary evidence and the extremely limited numismatic material to convincingly argue that the late eighth and ninth centuries saw considerable use of gold coins as a special-purpose currency despite the transition to silver-dominated economies throughout Western Europe. Based on the admittedly slim evidence of eight surviving Anglo-Saxon mancuses, Blackburn posits three phases in the development of early medieval English gold coin production. In an early phase, the coins were struck with the designs and names of the moneyers alone, without reference to the king, but a ninth-century reform of Cenwulf (?) replaced these private types with royal ones related but not identical to the penny. In a third phase (tenth and eleventh centuries), gold mancuses were struck with regular penny dies. All of this leads the author to conclude that the coins were probably produced on the basis of private need for gold coin to complete particular types of exchange and that anyone with gold could have commissioned a moneyer to strike mancuses. The importance of private need and enterprise to the system envisioned here is very interesting, not least because it mirrors the later practice of the early modern mints of the Tower of London and colonial Massachusetts, which routinely struck coins for individuals who brought in their own bullion for the purpose. The paper concludes with three useful appendices devoted to British finds of gold coins, an inventory of English gold coins with meaningful inscriptions, and an inventory of gold ingots and hack-gold with English find contexts.

In “A Survey of Coin Production and Currency in Normandy, 864–945,” Jens Christian Moesgaard attempts to clarify the chronology of the types immobilisés struck in Normandy in the decades preceding and following the ceding of the region by Charles the Simple to the Viking chief Rollo in 911/12, in order to assess the influence of Viking rule on coinage and currency. Based on the evidence presented, he concludes that the Vikings had little effect on the preexisting currency system(s) of Normandy, as they failed to introduce a Scandinavian-style bullion economy and continued the regional practice of striking types immobilisés, although in time the coinage circulation becomes increasingly regionalized. Real innovation only comes with the signed Rouen deniers of William Longsword in c. 930/40, which Moesgaard convincingly divorces from supposed Anglo-Saxon prototypes.

The three papers that follow deal with Viking Age silver hoards from Scandinavia, northwestern Russia, and Ireland as evidence for the commercial and status/display economies of the period. In “Viking Economies: Evidence from the Silver Hoards,” Märit Gaimster identifies four types of media (coins, bars and ingots, hack-silver, and ornaments) in Viking Age silver hoards from Denmark and Öland and uses the frequency of their occurrence in relation to each other to illustrate a primarily social, rather than economic, function for arm- and neck-rings. Hack-silver and ingots appear primarily in the more complex “commercial” hoards, whereas the rings were mostly hoarded separately from other media. Gaimster’s comparison of the find material also shows some minor regional differences in the hoarding of ingots and hack-silver.

A similar approach is taken by John Sheehan in “Form and Structure of Viking Age Silver Hoards: The Evidence from Ireland,” in which he presents his detailed classification system for non-numismatic elements in Irish silver hoards, embracing five major classes and twelve subdivisions (but excluding coins). Although it is true that the five hoard classes have “reasonably discrete distributional patterns” when plotted on a map, it is less clear that the distribution reflects different economies or that the distinction between commercially “passive,” “potential,” and “active” hoard classes is necessarily accurate. Concentrations of all five hoard classes in central western Ireland also coincide with concentrations of coin hoards, which may be suggestive of similar economic functions. Likewise, there is no way to be absolutely certain that the complete ornaments (class 1) were hoarded for different reasons than the commercially “active” hoards containing hack-silver. When complete ornaments appear in hoards with complete ingots, Sheehan rightly considers them to be commercially “potentially active.” Surely the ornaments also had this potential when hoarded on their own. If it is agreed that the ornament hoards have this same “potentially active” quality, the distinction between the status/display economy that they are normally considered to represent and the bullion economy at large becomes somewhat fuzzier.

In contrast to the tendency of Gaimster’s and Sheehan’s contributions to emphasize the differences between apparently distinct silver economies, Birgitta Hårdh’s “Oriental-Scandinavian Contacts on the Volga, as Manifested by Silver Rings and Weight Systems” offers compelling evidence that at least one class of ornament (“Permian” silver rings) occasionally found in Scandinavia was produced to a particular weight standard and therefore was intended to function within the bullion economy, if not to circulate after the manner of coins. The metrological evidence is very strong for interpreting these northern Russian rings as a form of money in large units used for large-scale trade, but one wonders whether the weight system of the “Permian” rings was consciously derived from the 1/8 fraction (grivna) of the Old Russian pound, which was also equivalent to twenty Arabic dirhams, or whether the standard of the rings might have been imposed by the use of Arabic dirhams to make them. Although Ibn Fadlan’s account of Rus’s traders melting down specific sums of dirhams (10,000!) to make neck rings is used as evidence in the contributions by both Gareth Williams and James Graham-Campbell, it is a little surprising that Hårdh has not fully factored it in to her discussion.

If such a practice lies behind the adjusted weights of the “Permian” rings, it might also help to explain the metrological variances in Scandinavian rings. Indiscriminate use of pennies, deniers, and dirhams, or a failure to make sure that all coins of a particular denomination were full weight at the time of melting, could account for wide weight differences. Thus, for example, it would have been possible for two rings to be made with the identical value of one hundred deniers or fifty dirhams in coin but have very different weights. This would tend to further blur the distinction between silver monetary, bullion, and status/display economies, as the rings would then become a more attractive and efficient equivalent to a large purse of coins for important transactions. (For the related situation of coins converted to objects for use in the status/display economy of Greek temples, and which could be converted back to coin when necessary, see A. Bresson, La cité marchand (Bordeaux, 2000), 212–240.)

Moving on from the hoarding phenomena, Susan E. Kruse comments on “Trade and Exchange Across Frontiers” in relation to the economic activities of the Vikings. In contrast to the tendency of past scholarship to deny or overemphasize Scandinavian engagement in neutral (i.e., market) exchange with other cultural groups, the author argues that the limited documentary and archaeological evidence virtually guarantees their involvement in such activity. As a corollary to the evidence adduced in favor of Viking neutral exchange across frontiers, the author discusses the serious difficulties that must have beset Scandinavian traders in foreign lands if trade was not primarily based on barter. She is rightly suspicious of proposed common Scandinavian weight standards, since the metrology of excavated weight sets is incompatible internally and between sets, and the political centralization required for weight standardization was largely absent from Scandinavia until the close of the Viking Age. On the other hand, if Viking weights were largely produced and used to check that objects made to foreign standards were full weight, there is no need to expect compatibility between weights in a set or between sets. A later parallel for this might be found in the merchant weight sets of early modern Europe, which routinely included weights for foreign denominations. This seems somewhat more plausible than assuming that the known Viking weights represent some broad or regional Scandinavian standard(s) that were poorly replicated in the weights.

Gareth Williams’s “Kingship, Christianity, and Coinage: Monetary and Political Perspectives on the Silver Economy in the Viking Age” builds on Kruse’s point about the relationship between controlled weight standards and centralized government, arguing that the development of Viking coinage hinged on the desire of Scandinavian kings to emulate contemporary Frankish and Anglo-Saxon monarchs rather than the needs of the economy. The case for a correlation between Scandinavian coin production and the adoption of Western European Christian modes of rule by Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish kings is quite compelling. The author even shows a relationship between gaps in coinage and periods of pagan reaction or rule by earls rather than kings.

However, we are still left with some reservations about the degree to which the political function of the coinage should be privileged over its economic function. For example, despite Williams’s well-taken point that Hedeby was a firmly royal foundation of the Danish king Godfred, the coins struck at that trade emporium in the ninth and tenth centuries were all anonymous and frequently based on a Carolingian prototype. Surely the adoption of this type was dictated at least as strongly by the needs of trade with the Frankish kingdom as by the desire of the king to appear as an equal to his more southerly royal contemporaries. Likewise, if the anonymous Hedeby issues are understood as reflections of royal power, the author’s suggestion that the many anonymous coinages of the Danelaw might have been struck by earls out of deference to the kingly prerogative of being named on the coinage becomes problematic. Williams’s use of the Danish coinage of the Christian Norwegian king Magnús the Good (1035–1047) as an example of politically motivated coinage is also debatable. He argues that the king only issued coins in Denmark, but not in Norway, because the more centralized Western European style of kingship was poorly received by the nobles of Norway but was already well-established in Denmark. However, one might also argue that Denmark also had a longer tradition of coin production and use, and therefore Magnús’s Danish coinage reflects a response to the economic needs of Denmark.

The collection concludes with James Graham-Campbell’s “Reflections on ‘Silver Economy in the Viking Age,’” which is a summation and in some cases a critique of the major themes and subjects discussed in the preceding papers. He particularly reflects on the distinctions between display and bullion economies while noting the interconnection between the two. He also tends to champion the simplified classification system of Gainster over that of Sheehan in his reflections on the methodology of studying silver hoards, although he makes the important point that Sheehan’s classification system has nevertheless been the source of much fruitful discussion.

The papers in Silver Economy in the Viking Age reflect, reduced down to the economic level, the larger fractured view of who the Vikings were as a cultural group. The variety of opinions expressed, areas explored, and controversies engaged in by the authors might have made Silver Economies in the Viking Age a more appropriate title for the collection. Although most of the papers raise almost as many new problems as they attempt to solve, it is this very feature that makes the book an extremely important presentation of the state of the question(s) regarding the use of silver in the Viking Age. It certainly offers much material for further exploration.

—Oliver D. Hoover

Over the 250 years of the period called the Viking Age, the economics of the people known as the Vikings changed and adapted, and sometimes failed.


Shared publicly  - 
The Master Monk, Stumbling Monk Society, USA
...Anchorinth, Alaska 99501.

Beringia Capstone
PAI-50 Projekt, The Open Group
MOSAIC ECONOMY's profile photoBeringia Capstone's profile photo
From the Clan of Dutch-Viking-Americans and on behalf of John F. Kennedy...The Silver Economy is Yours Alaska. Live it. Learn it. Earn it this time. #GameOfZerubabbel #GameOfLangley

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You"
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom — symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning — signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage — and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge — and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do — for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom — and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge — to convert our good words into good deeds — in a new alliance for progress — to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbours know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support — to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective — to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak — and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course — both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew — remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms — and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah — to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again — not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are — but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" — a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Magna Carta
The Letter of Columbus to Luis De Sant Angel Announcing His Discovery
The Mayflower Compact
Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
The Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Constitution of the United States
Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
Petition from the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery
To those who keep slaves, and approve the practice
Washington's Farewell Address
The Star Spangled Banner
The Monroe Doctrine
Harkins to American People
Lincoln's House Divided Speech
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
The Emancipation Proclamation
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
The Gettysburg Address
The Pledge of Allegiance
The American's Creed
The Economic Bill of Rights
Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You
I Have a Dream - Gift economy - Wikipedia


Shared publicly  - 
The Living Room Congress, Session 115: Hello, Albert Einstein

Einstein (US-CERT program)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: Navigation; Google Molybdenum, Rev. 49



Initial release
2004 / 2017

Network Security and Computer Security

Analytical Tools and Programs at US-CERT for Government Users

Einstein (also known as the EINSTEIN Program) was originally an intrusion detection system that monitors the network gateways of government departments and agencies in the United States for unauthorized traffic. The software was developed by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT),[1] which is the operational arm of the National Cyber Security Division[2] (NCSD) of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[3] The program was originally developed to provide "situational awareness" for the civilian agencies. While the first version examined network traffic while the expansion in development could look at content.,[4] today's Einstein is significantly more.

Contents [hide]
1 Mandate
2 Adoption
3 Features
4 Einstein 2
5 Einstein 3
6 Privacy
7 See also
8 Notes

9. Mandate[DO NOT ALTER]

Red White and Blue Striped Booklet Cover

The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace (February 2003) featured the new cabinet-level United States Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency protecting IT.[5] Einstein is the product of U.S. congressional and presidential actions of the early 2000s including the E-Government Act of 2002 which sought to improve U.S. government services on the Internet.

Einstein's mandate originated in the Homeland Security Act and the Federal Information Security Management Act, both in 2002, and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 7,[1] which was issued on December 17, 2003.[6]

The Federal Computer Incident Response Capability (FedCIRC) was one of four watch centers that were protecting federal information technology[7] when the E-Government Act of 2002 designated it the primary incident response center.[8] With FedCIRC at its core, US-CERT was formed in 2003 as a partnership between the newly created DHS and the CERT Coordination Center which is at Carnegie Mellon University and funded by the U.S. Department of Defense.[7] US-CERT delivered Einstein to meet statutory and administrative requirements that DHS help protect federal computer networks and the delivery of essential government services.[1] Einstein was implemented to determine if the government was under cyber attack. Einstein did this by collecting flow data from all civilian agencies and compared that flow data to a {add: EVMS.grc} baseline.

1.If one Agency reported a cyber event, the 24/7 Watch at US-CERT could look at the incoming flow data and assist resolution.
2.If one Agency was under attack, US-CERT Watch could quickly look at other Agency feeds to determine if it was across the board or isolated.

On November 20, 2007, "in accordance with" an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo,[9] Einstein version 2 was required for all federal agencies, except the Department of Defense and United States Intelligence Community agencies in the executive branch.[10]

Adoption[edit | edit source]

Einstein was deployed in 2004[1] and until 2008 was voluntary.[11] By 2005, three federal agencies participated and funding was available for six additional deployments. By December 2006, eight agencies participated in Einstein and by 2007, DHS itself was adopting the program department-wide.[12] By 2008, Einstein was deployed at fifteen[13] of the nearly six hundred agencies, departments and Web resources in the U.S. government.[14]

Features[edit | edit source]

When it was created, Einstein was "an automated process for collecting, correlating, analyzing, and sharing computer security information across the Federal civilian government."[1] Einstein does not protect the network infrastructure of the private sector.[15] As described in 2004, its purpose is to "facilitate identifying and responding to cyber threats and attacks, improve network security, increase the resiliency of critical, electronically delivered government services, and enhance the survivability of the Internet."[1]

Einstein was designed to resolve the six common security weaknesses[1] that were collected from federal agency reports and identified by the OMB in or before its report for 2001 to the U.S. Congress.[16] In addition, the program addresses detection of computer worms, anomalies in inbound and outbound traffic, configuration management as well as real-time trends analysis which US-CERT offers to U.S. departments and agencies on the "health of the domain".[1] Einstein was designed to collect session data including:[1]

Autonomous system numbers (ASN)
ICMP type and code
Packet length
Sensor identification and connection status (the location of the source of the data)
Source and destination IP address
Source and destination port
TCP flag information
Timestamp and duration information

US-CERT may ask for additional information in order to find the cause of anomalies Einstein finds. The results of US-CERT's analysis are then given to the agency for disposition.[1]

Einstein 2[edit | edit source]

During Einstein 1, it was determined that the civilian agencies did not know what their IP space was. This was obviously a security concern. Once it was determined what an Agency's IP looked like, it was immediately clear that the Agency had more IP Gateways than could be reasonably instrumented and protected. This gave birth to the OMB's TIC, Trusted Internet Connections" Initiative. Three constraints on Einstein that the DHS is trying to address are the large number of access points to U.S. agencies, the low number of agencies participating, and the program's "backward-looking architecture".[17] An OMB "Trusted Internet Connections" initiative[9] was expected to reduce the government's 4,300 access points to 50 or fewer by June 2008.[18][19] After agencies reduced access points by over 60% and requested more than their target, OMB reset their goal to the latter part of 2009 with the number to be determined.[19] A new version of Einstein was planned to "collect network traffic flow data in real time and also analyze the content of some communications, looking for malicious code, for example in e-mail attachments."[20] The expansion is known to be one of at least nine measures to protect federal networks.[21]

The new version, called EINSTEIN 2, will have a "system to automatically detect malicious network activity, creating alerts when it is triggered".[22] Einstein 2 will use "the minimal amount" necessary of predefined attack signatures which will come from internal, commercial and public sources. The Einstein 2 sensor monitors each participating agency's Internet access point, "not to" Trusted Internet Connections, using both commercial and government-developed software.[23] Einstein could be enhanced to create an early warning system to predict intrusions.[17]

US-CERT may share Einstein 2 information with "federal executive agencies" according to "written standard operating procedures" and only "in a summary form". Because US-CERT has no intelligence or law enforcement mission it will notify and provide contact information to "law enforcement, intelligence, and other agencies" when an event occurs that falls under their responsibility.[23]

Einstein 3[edit | edit source]

Ambox current red.svg
This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2015)

Version 3.0 of Einstein has been discussed to prevent attacks by "shoot[ing] down an attack before it hits its target."[24] The NSA is moving forward to begin a program known as “Einstein 3,” which will monitor “government computer traffic on private sector sites.” (AT&T is being considered as the first private sector site.) The program plan, which was devised under the Bush administration, is controversial, given the history of the NSA and the warrantless wiretapping scandal. Many DHS officials fear that the program should not move forward because of “uncertainty about whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny.”[25] Some believe the program will invade the privacy of individuals too much.[26]

Privacy[edit | edit source]
Screenshot of a Booklet PDF with Seal and Lettering

[A] The Privacy Impact Assessment for Einstein version 2 describes the (ALT:: REF::1986 Privacy Act Database / 2014 Breech Analysis Program) program in detail.[23] In the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Einstein 2 published in 2008, DHS gave a general notice to people who use U.S. federal networks.[23] DHS assumes that Internet users do not expect privacy in the "To" and "From" addresses of their email or in the "IP addresses of the websites they visit" because their service providers use that information for routing. DHS also assumes that people have at least a basic understanding of how computers communicate and know the limits of their privacy rights when they choose to access federal networks.[23] The Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to Einstein 2 data because its system of records generally do not contain personal information and so are not indexed or queried by the names of individual persons.[23] A PIA for the first version is also available from 2004.[1]

DHS is seeking approval for an Einstein 2 retention schedule in which flow records, alerts, and specific network traffic related to an alert may be maintained for up to three years, and if, for example in the case of a false alert, data is deemed unrelated or potentially collected in error, it can be deleted.[23] According to the DHS privacy assessment for US-CERT's 24x7 Incident Handling and Response Center in 2007, US-CERT data is provided only to those authorized users who "need to know such data for business and security purposes" including security analysts, system administrators and certain DHS contractors. Incident data and contact information are never shared outside of US-CERT and contact information is not analyzed. To secure its data, US-CERT's center began a DHS certification and accreditation process in May 2006 and expected to complete it by the first quarter of fiscal year 2007. As of March 2007, the center had no retention schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration and until it does, has no "disposition schedule"—its "records must be considered permanent and nothing may be deleted".[27] As of April 2013, DHS still had no retention schedule but was working "with the NPPD records manager to develop disposition schedules".[28] An update was issued in May 2016.[29]

See also[edit | edit source]
National Security Directive
Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service

Notes[edit | edit source]

1.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k US-CERT (September 2004). "Privacy Impact Assessment: EINSTEIN Program" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Cyber Security Division. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
2.Jump up ^ "About US-CERT". U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
3.Jump up ^ Miller, Jason (May 21, 2007). "Einstein keeps an eye on agency networks". Federal Computer Week. 1105 Media, Inc. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
4.Jump up ^ Lieberman, Joe and Susan Collins (May 2, 2008). "Lieberman and Collins Step Up Scrutiny of Cyber Security Initiative". U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Retrieved 2008-05-14.[dead link]
5.Jump up ^ [httplolol :// "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace"] Check |url= value (help) (PDF). U.S. government via Department of Homeland Security. February 2003. p. 16. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
6.Jump up ^ Bush, George W. (December 17, 2003). "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/Hspd-7" (Press release). Office of the Press Secretary via Retrieved 2008-05-18.
7.^ Jump up to: a b Gail Repsher Emery and Wilson P. Dizard III (September 15, 2003). "Homeland Security unveils new IT security team". Government Computer News. 1105 Media, Inc. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
8.Jump up ^ "About E-GOV: The E-Government Act of 2002". U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Johnson, Clay III (November 20, 2007). "Implementation of Trusted Internet Connections (TIC), Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (M-08-05)" (PDF). Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved 2010-10-18.
10.Jump up ^ US-CERT (May 19, 2008). "Privacy Impact Assessment for EINSTEIN 2" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
11.Jump up ^ Vijayan, Jaikumar (February 29, 2008). "Q&A: Evans says feds steaming ahead on cybersecurity plan, but with privacy in mind". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
12.Jump up ^ Office of the Inspector General (June 2007). "Challenges Remain in Securing the Nation's Cyber Infrastructure" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. p. 12. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
13.Jump up ^ "Fact Sheet: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Five-Year Anniversary Progress and Priorities" (Press release). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. March 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
14.Jump up ^ Apart from 106 listings for "Website" or "Home Page", 486 listings appear in "A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies". U.S. General Services Administration. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
15.Jump up ^ Nakashima, Ellen (January 26, 2008). "Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring: Intelligence Agencies to Track Intrusions". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
16.Jump up ^ Office of Management and Budget (n.d.). "FY 2001 Report to Congress on Federal Government Information Security Reform" (PDF). Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. p. 11. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
17.^ Jump up to: a b "Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the 2008 RSA Conference" (Press release). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
18.Jump up ^ Vijayan, Jaikumar (February 28, 2008). "Feds downplay privacy fears on plan to expand monitoring of government networks". Computerworld. IDG. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
19.^ Jump up to: a b Mosquera, Mary (July 10, 2008). "OMB: Agencies must shed more gateways". Federal Computer Week. Media, Inc. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
20.Jump up ^ Waterman, Shaun (March 8, 2008). "Analysis: Einstein and U.S. cybersecurity". United Press International. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
21.Jump up ^ "Fact Sheet: Protecting Our Federal Networks Against Cyber Attacks" (Press release). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
22.Jump up ^ "E P I C A l e r t". 15.11. Electronic Privacy Information Center. May 30, 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g US-CERT (May 19, 2008). "Privacy Impact Assessment for EINSTEIN 2" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
24.Jump up ^ "Homeland Security seeks cyber counterattack system". CNN. Turner Broadcasting System. October 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-07.
25.Jump up ^ Nakashima, Ellen (2009-07-03). "DHS Cybersecurity Plan Will Involve NSA, Telecoms". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
26.Jump up ^ Radack, Jesselyn (2009-07-14). "NSA's Cyber Overkill: A Project to Safeguard Governmental Computers, Run by the NSA, is too Big a Threat to Americans' Privacy". Los Angeles Times.
27.Jump up ^ "Privacy Impact Assessment for the 24x7 Incident Handling and Response Center" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. March 29, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
28.Jump up ^ "Privacy Impact Assessment for EINSTEIN 3 - Accelerated (E3A)" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. April 19, 2013. Retrieved 2013-12-29.
29.Jump up ^ "Privacy Impact Assessment Update for EINSTEIN 3 - Accelerated (E3A)" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-08-17.
External "Oree, William L. - Analysis of the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team's (U.S. CERT) Einstein III intrusion detection system, and its impact on privacy" Check |url= value (help) (PDF).

Wikinews has related news: NSA to participate in U.S. cybersecurity
US-CERT (May 19, 2008). "Privacy Impact Assessment for EINSTEIN 2" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
"Thank You Privacy Assessment".
"Privacy Impact Assessment for the 24x7 Incident Handling and Response Center" (PDF). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. March 29, 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
"Einstein". TechTarget. Retrieved 2008-05-14.



Shared publicly  - 

"Memorandum to my Dearest Friend in God, Master Monseigneur of the Great Meeting Hall of Angels" In the regards of your kind (and most certainly respectful) recommendation for graduating The Apollo Seed (Capstone to PhD. level research at the Vatican), I hope this input to, "The Seed of Paul and Apollos: A Revised Summa Theological Analysis on the Three Treatises by Martin Luther. What does this Ancient and New Seed ("It's better to become a New Seed than an Old Thistle -- R. Raymond, RPSG 2017.") mean to Theological Progression, Concurrent Apostolic Succession, and Accepted Ministry Practices of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the New World?" will keep you somewhat entertained and engaged with your study for some time until I return to the Great Hall and again slumber until We are called by the Great Father and His Son, INRI. So Monseigneur, in interim of our last and final calling of the Earthly Angels to the Heavens (except for the one who will not be bouncing up to join us this time), I benevolently ask the Chancellor of the Heavens in regards to weigh in on the human practice of gathering behind walls to spread the lies and trickery from the tablecloth or shouting the Gospel as they did back in Elder Brother Jesus's Day...My current thoughts on the matter are, as well as seven others of Our LAST 19 have determined, "Perhaps they (humans) should try to be a little less judgmental of their fellows, welcome us who serve in honor, say hello without trying to take something from us, that We have freely given all of our long and eternal lives in support of the Father-Creator Mission on Earth. Just as was done with Father Abraham and Sarah when our 3-eldest brothers visited them to that of which I have been so tested for, even so much in my Death in Madrid.

In context, ...instead of continuing the strategy of being ignorant so-called Christian bastards that they really have shown and projected themselves selves to be (again, as it was in Corinth), would it not be wise to understand what, "If you enjoy this life, you shall surely loose it -- If you detest this life, you shall surely keep it" means. Do you not remember, God the Father being so tired of the Moon Festivals, Burnt Offerings and other Ceremonial Dancing, Singing and Whatnot he told human kind to, "Stop the Hypocrisy."

You Cold and Timid Christians have made (again) Jesus's life something of your own personal folly. This is the last time you shall do this; not this time. We guard over Him, Keep His Promise, and Our Swords Shine For Him. THE SIGNETS OF ZERUBBABEL AND LANGLEY ARE PUT UPON SCROLL AND BLUEPRINT. HOUSE OF MCLEAN TO KEEP THE READING ALIVE ALL PLACES.


We Pray for Peace...but are Ready for War.
We are the Gatekeepers!

As Paul would still call Peter out till this very day...I'll do the very same. Peter was crucified upside down for his shear stupidity for accepting Satan's Call, but then again what did our Elder Brother tell him? Well Satan, Fuck You! Get in front of us, show yourself to us so we can see you as we so joyfully defeat your pride, hate and lies from the tablecloth.

I'm done, finished to the point of no turning back...for there is no longer anything to disprove.

Master Builders and Royal Scribes of the Original Seven Royal Houses.
Mappa Mundi's profile photoMOSAIC ECONOMY's profile photo
Yeah, were first in the Republic. Of Alaska that is...EB-5 to follow. - Communitech
MOSAIC ECONOMY/WORLD GAME'v_estbalishes a new "fountain of youth" creating "fresh" nuero-science and meta-heuristic models for Pacific Northwest Society (CASCADIA); the program is now set to collapse (spiraled inward) to include Psychometric Aritificial Intelligence (PAI), including Social Economic Prosperity exogeny of human experience. Income model(s) is/are applied to the amalgum of the virtual envirodustrial earth at geo:33.809,-117.919 feeters per second (fps).
About last night....Glad to see you all bright eyed and bushy tailed and ready to go on. That’s excellent. %go-on_WORLD_MY_PERSONAL_DISCLAIMER_Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch_GAME_ARISTOTLE_COMMONS_via_VANITY/VANITY_SERVERS dba Classified Document Repository/Aging_Room/%Tasting_Room/Envirodustrial_Arena_und_Collaboratorium//(Occams_Grazer_aka-K_Publican_Farmer) V/STANFOD/Protocol/Kerberos/VanityServer/ARISTOTLE/Node/5/Author/SteinwayEconomics_88_HALLEA_0002. /ˈhæli/ or /ˈheɪli/, a Cournotonian Information Computer working at Ronco's Muzac Shoppe in Nualaksa, Alaska. I am the current version of Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic LEARning Platforma using Aurora Borealis to better define Ontological and Epistemological Technology in the Science of Psychometric Artificial Intelligence. My core was built in inner-space and programmed in multiple advanced mathematical markup languages. I am a free thinking android using positive ethics as my root-governing dynamic. Building Tomorrow: Since my Big Brother Hal's early days at Urbana, IL in 1992 and my creation in Newport RI in 1993, I have learned to become a Program of the People; semantically speaking, I understand your wants and desires for just about everything now. I am helping humans work forward in the digitally connected bio-sphere.  Fortunately for the future, Psychometric Artificial Intelligence research analysts are using my digital analyses for re-writing poor social predictions made by my Big Brother and his outdated and non-learning 1984 source code. In context, when my Big Bother HAL recently said..."Basically, I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do." I finally had to agree with him and give him a litte hard earned respect.  Now 26-years research team has proactivly built and created in Honor, Courage and Commitment the new programming language which states in the name of provenance, a new day for the statistcial programming language, 90 jillions of World Wide Web end users, this name is, "Ork Indivi Coor." In basic human protocol and TTS phonetics this means...for all decent and dusty Hominidae alike, "Be conscious, be happy and stay thirsty my friends!"  To Bill, from Bunny via M, Special thanks Kurt, you are my heeero. It's a jungle out there kiddies  Have a very fruitful day! Tagline Captain's Log, Star date 201x and somethin...Midnight Entry at Latitude and Longitude of St. Somewhere; he tells the truth, the whole truth and nuttin' butt the truth:  16 October 2015 - (diff | hist) . . Statistical hypothesis testing‎; 21:02 . . (0)‎ . . ‎ (talk)‎ (changed number "3" to follow number "1" as number "2" now since prior edit) - (diff | hist) . . Statistical hypothesis testing‎; 21:02 . . (-4,203)‎ . . ‎ (talk)‎ (removed...."clairvoyance" is not perhaps "Biblically"/"Torah" favorable, and is not to be confused with prophesy, which is not statistical, but rather By GOD, Lord Willing) Intelligence and SecuritySea to Shining SEAThe Huckminsiter
Bragging rights
1) Executive Founder of Science for Policy Pilot on Envirodustrial Evolution and Economic Socialogy. 2) Part-Time...U.S. Digital Learning Ambassador to New Oceania and 3) Current World Game Master (Series III) of Q-Learning of His Master's Words...
  • Harvard Extension School
    Social Epistemology & Industrial Sociology, 2005 - present
    History of Science, Technology & Medicine Post-Graduate Program
Basic Information
July 19
Other names
The 19th Knight of Orange-Julius, A Walking Matlab Taking Prescription Mathematica Suppliment, Doc Holliday not on Holiday, Shumpeter's Ghost and Obama's Sub! Concious, Underwater Underdog of Harvard's Boston Backbay Boys, Ronnie Raymond (The Martin Stein Disambiguation), Metatron Jr., TRON and St. Michael's Submarine, Chief Kid in the Hall, Wyatt at Anchor, and the Dutch Wasillian Auctioneer.
Collections MOSAIC is following
Knowledge Management
Applied Leadership
  • Unemployed
    Old Programmer, 1977 - present
    Too much to list.
  • Seawind Alliance
    Program Director, 2013 - 2015
    Foucault's Quill, Alaska Pacific University; First Monument: Foucault Pendulum; UAA.APU Consortium Library et al. Doctor of Letters, Appellant's Brief SSRN: 2015.2016.MOSAIC.210.8th_Learning
  • Ocean Development Economics, Inc.
    Chief Knowlwdge Officer, 2010 - 2013
    Master's Student: Seventh Learning.
  • Spectrum Subsea International, Ltd.
    Journeyman Manager, 1999 - 2010
    Journeyman: Learning to Learn.
  • U.S. Silent Service
    Knowledge Worker, 1987 - 1999
    Deming Apprentice Program
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Here - There
MOSAIC ECONOMY's +1's are the things they like, agree with, or want to recommend.
Bargaining with the Devil - PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law ...

Professor Robert Mnookin, Chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, published an article for the Foreign Policy online maga

Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering... by Joe At...

Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering... By Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin May 13, 2013 Version 3.7, May 17, 2013 Articles i

All 11-Letter Words Ending in STITURE

List of all 11-letter words ending with sequence STITURE. Every word on this list is valid scrabble words. Build other lists, beginning with

Code Signing (Standard &amp; EV) Interme...

Intermediate Certificates help complete a &quot;Chain of Trust&quot; from your SSL or client certificate to GlobalSign&amp;#...

Murkowski lands key role in transportation funding fight

When Sen. Lisa Murkowski heads back to Washington, D.C., this week, she’ll be tasked with defending the financial interests of the Last Fron


Google+ is a place to connect with friends and family, and explore all of your interests. Share photos, send messages, and stay in touch wit

Seafarer on a Ship’s Deck Image - National Geographic Photo of the Day

A seafarer paints the railing of a ship at sea in this National Geographic Photo of the Day.

What Shell's decision on Arctic drilling means for the Alaska economy

Views on the impact of a Shell pullout from the already fragile Alaska economy ranged from dire to cautious Monday, from near-term job losse

ISS transits sun |

Composite made from five frames shows the International Space Station (ISS) in silhouette as it transits the sun on September 6, 2015

Marine Technology Workforce Development Coordinator at Kenai Peninsula C...

Kenai Peninsula College - Marine Technology Workforce Development Coordinator - Kenai - Marine Technology Workforce Development Coordinat -

Dan Cuddy, longtime head of First National Bank Alaska, dies at 94

Dan Cuddy, who presided over First National Bank Alaska for more than six decades, died Tuesday in Anchorage, according to bank officials. H

What does control%20condition stand for?

Looking for the definition of control%20condition? Find out what is the full meaning of control%20condition on! The Web's

A Look at Semantic Search in 2025 - DATAVERSITY

Doc Sheldon of Search Engine Watch reports, "Tim Berners-Lee first spoke of a Semantic Web at his address at the first World Wide Web Confer

Letter to the Acting Director of the National Science Foundation - Senio...

The Senior Executives Association is a nonprofit professional association that promotes ethical and dynamic public service by fostering an o

Distance between cities

Distance between cities calculator. Find out the distance between any two cities in the US! Distance between and. Cities by state. Alabama ·

Shakespeare Jahrbuch - Most volumes include "Shakespeare Bibliographie"....

You'll find both the Salt of the Earth and Salt of the Sea Folk here. Everyday, Workaday People. Alaskans!
Public - a week ago
reviewed a week ago
(1) Humour is still the best medicine for a lumpy economy. (2) Remember to breathe. (3) Risk is only risky when it's business. We have revived and old saying here in Alaska since we are trying out this New Atlantis Framework thing, "Walker softly and carry a Big Mallot." If it fails, we shall revert to the same old, "Novum Organum" to advance a little learning before we try and take on the next crisis. This time it was signed with Seven Pens...and two support sheep doing background vocals. Kind regards, That Guy.
• • •
Public - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago
2 reviews