5 ms·

Maybe I've been burned lately and my faith in humanity is ebbing but I'm hoping the reference to that specific committee isn't about "government sounds stupid i

Maybe I've been burned lately and my faith in humanity is ebbing but I'm hoping the reference to that specific committee isn't about "government sounds stupid if you take it out of context, so it's good that we burn it all down" The Coast Guard having a plan for when large fishing vessels get into trouble, and indeed a plan to stop them getting into trouble, seems like a good thing to me even if it's grouped somewhat incongruously under Department of Homeland Security. edit: your other comment on this makes me think we are at the "letting commercial fisherman, and the coastguards trying to rescue them, drown to own the libs" stage, and my faith in humanity drops another notch.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Grum9 2y ago
The "U.S. Coast Guard was formed by a merger of the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and the U.S. Life-Saving Service on 28 January 1915" (wiki). The US Department of Homeland Security "began operations on March 1, 2003, after being formed as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in response to the September 11 attacks" (wiki). So are you saying that for 78 years of its existence, the USCG had no "plan for when large fishing vessels get into trouble, and indeed a plan to stop them getting into trouble" until the DHS assembled a (assuming this is a thing) "National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee"? You dont think theres any redundancy? That just maybe bureaucracy cant help but to expand forever every time someone with a title has a question that cant be answered immediately by someone standing in the room, they have to create a committee so they can have someone on speed dial? If the coast guard doesnt have plans for this, one wonders what the coast guard does all day.
- sympil 2y ago
  It’s common for organizations to reorganize. It’s quite possible that the committee was formed for purposes of centralization and efficacy. It’s also possible it was government overreach. What are the justifications for axing a committee or regulations and are those justifications correct?
  - kjellsbells 2y ago
    Especially given the genesis of DHS, it would not be surprising if that agency vacuumed up a great deal of prior teams, groups, etc., in the name of national anti terrorism. Cabinet level agencies tend to expand over time as DC turf wars ebb and flow. It could just as easily have been, for example, that back in 2002 someone realized USCG was involved in drug and weapons interdiction in the waters off Florida, swept them up into DHS under anti terror laws, and got the fishing boat thing as a freebie. It does not mean that USCG were not doing anything on the latter until DHS showed up.
- atombender 2y ago
  What you say might be true. But what do you actually know about this committee and their work? Chesterton's Fence is a good rule of thumb here. As an outsider, you might look at this and assume it's a superfluous service. But until you've figured out why it exists, it seems premature to assume it shouldn't exist.
djoldman 2y ago
Here is the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Council charter: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/24_0712_ncfsac_charter_renewal.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/24_0712_ncfs... The activities listed are: 1. "...advise and provide recommendations in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security...on matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels" 2. "review regulations..." 3. "review marine casualties and investigations of vessels..."
- wyldfire 2y ago
  So, maybe the new administration did a global "ctrl-f regulation, uncheck".
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Or maybe dozens of K-street hotshots carefully scrutizined every possible department that could include such committees. Or more likely, somewhere inbetween, thousands of teams, mediated by a few hundred of the most influential, struggling to get the attention of this or that decision maker. Most of them just throwing random things at a wall and seeing what sticks. The truth is HN readers won’t know and can’t ever know, barring a tiny handful who can read the tea leaves successfully year after year.
    - metadat 2y ago
      What's a "K-street hotshot"? K-street is new to me. Edit: Thanks to @lelandfe for pointing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_(Washington,_D.C.) * n.b. HN can't handle the period at the end of the link, see the jump page link for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street I'll leave this comment up in case there are others this term is also new to.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2y ago
absolutelastone 2y ago
It's probably about mission creep, I'd guess.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
We need to see YoY growth on ship rescues to justify their existence. Otherwise they're just a parasitic cost center.
- viraptor 2y ago
  That's a terrible idea for a group which is trying to prevent ships getting into trouble to begin with. Measuring the rescues would be a here incentive that would get more people in dangerous situations.
  - quesera 2y ago
    'twas surely a joke.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      You see... Recently powerful people present such stupid ideas, and have large approval, that I honestly can't tell. Poe's law is going to be more popular than ever now.
      - quesera 2y ago
        I sympathize completely.
      - netsharc 2y ago
        I mean, the FBI's been doing this with grooming their own "terrorists" (embededded agents prodding people to say Anti-American things, and then prodding them to perform a terrorist attack by supplying them with the plan and bomb supplies...).
derf_ 2y ago
> ...even if it's grouped somewhat incongruously under Department of Homeland Security. DHS is arguably a much more appropriate home for the Coast Guard than its previous department, Transportation, given all of the facets of their actual mission (source: father and grandfather both in the Coast Guard for 30+ years).
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  By the numbers though I wouldn’t be surprised if the number one issue coast guard deals with is drunken recreational boaters.
  - avs733 2y ago
    I imagine there is a big gap between the things they deal with the most and the things they need to plan for the most. I send more emails than anything, but if you tried to get me to spend time being trained on sending email they wouldn’t find your body. Conversely I design new courses rarely, but when I do it matters immensely that it’s done well. Resources and support and structure to help me do that well when I need to is most welcome.
esbranson 2y ago
If the relevant Coast Guard officials need advisory committees for the things you mention, core parts of their mission for who-knows-how-long, they ought to be fired too. My point is that advisory commissions are not a core part of any government agency, and should not be.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Grum9 2y ago

The "U.S. Coast Guard was formed by a merger of the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and the U.S. Life-Saving Service on 28 January 1915" (wiki). The US Department of Homeland Security "began operations on March 1, 2003, after being formed as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in response to the September 11 attacks" (wiki). So are you saying that for 78 years of its existence, the USCG had no "plan for when large fishing vessels get into trouble, and indeed a plan to stop them getting into trouble" until the DHS assembled a (assuming this is a thing) "National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee"? You dont think theres any redundancy? That just maybe bureaucracy cant help but to expand forever every time someone with a title has a question that cant be answered immediately by someone standing in the room, they have to create a committee so they can have someone on speed dial? If the coast guard doesnt have plans for this, one wonders what the coast guard does all day.

sympil 2y ago
It’s common for organizations to reorganize. It’s quite possible that the committee was formed for purposes of centralization and efficacy. It’s also possible it was government overreach. What are the justifications for axing a committee or regulations and are those justifications correct?
- kjellsbells 2y ago
  Especially given the genesis of DHS, it would not be surprising if that agency vacuumed up a great deal of prior teams, groups, etc., in the name of national anti terrorism. Cabinet level agencies tend to expand over time as DC turf wars ebb and flow. It could just as easily have been, for example, that back in 2002 someone realized USCG was involved in drug and weapons interdiction in the waters off Florida, swept them up into DHS under anti terror laws, and got the fishing boat thing as a freebie. It does not mean that USCG were not doing anything on the latter until DHS showed up.
atombender 2y ago
What you say might be true. But what do you actually know about this committee and their work? Chesterton's Fence is a good rule of thumb here. As an outsider, you might look at this and assume it's a superfluous service. But until you've figured out why it exists, it seems premature to assume it shouldn't exist.

djoldman 2y ago

Here is the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Council charter: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/24_0712_ncfsac_charter_renewal.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/24_0712_ncfs... The activities listed are: 1. "...advise and provide recommendations in writing to the Secretary of Homeland Security...on matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels" 2. "review regulations..." 3. "review marine casualties and investigations of vessels..."

wyldfire 2y ago
So, maybe the new administration did a global "ctrl-f regulation, uncheck".
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Or maybe dozens of K-street hotshots carefully scrutizined every possible department that could include such committees. Or more likely, somewhere inbetween, thousands of teams, mediated by a few hundred of the most influential, struggling to get the attention of this or that decision maker. Most of them just throwing random things at a wall and seeing what sticks. The truth is HN readers won’t know and can’t ever know, barring a tiny handful who can read the tea leaves successfully year after year.
  - metadat 2y ago
    What's a "K-street hotshot"? K-street is new to me. Edit: Thanks to @lelandfe for pointing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_(Washington,_D.C.) * n.b. HN can't handle the period at the end of the link, see the jump page link for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street I'll leave this comment up in case there are others this term is also new to.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago

absolutelastone 2y ago

It's probably about mission creep, I'd guess.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

We need to see YoY growth on ship rescues to justify their existence. Otherwise they're just a parasitic cost center.

viraptor 2y ago
That's a terrible idea for a group which is trying to prevent ships getting into trouble to begin with. Measuring the rescues would be a here incentive that would get more people in dangerous situations.
- quesera 2y ago
  'twas surely a joke.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    You see... Recently powerful people present such stupid ideas, and have large approval, that I honestly can't tell. Poe's law is going to be more popular than ever now.
    - quesera 2y ago
      I sympathize completely.
    - netsharc 2y ago
      I mean, the FBI's been doing this with grooming their own "terrorists" (embededded agents prodding people to say Anti-American things, and then prodding them to perform a terrorist attack by supplying them with the plan and bomb supplies...).

derf_ 2y ago

> ...even if it's grouped somewhat incongruously under Department of Homeland Security. DHS is arguably a much more appropriate home for the Coast Guard than its previous department, Transportation, given all of the facets of their actual mission (source: father and grandfather both in the Coast Guard for 30+ years).

kjkjadksj 2y ago
By the numbers though I wouldn’t be surprised if the number one issue coast guard deals with is drunken recreational boaters.
- avs733 2y ago
  I imagine there is a big gap between the things they deal with the most and the things they need to plan for the most. I send more emails than anything, but if you tried to get me to spend time being trained on sending email they wouldn’t find your body. Conversely I design new courses rarely, but when I do it matters immensely that it’s done well. Resources and support and structure to help me do that well when I need to is most welcome.

esbranson 2y ago

If the relevant Coast Guard officials need advisory committees for the things you mention, core parts of their mission for who-knows-how-long, they ought to be fired too. My point is that advisory commissions are not a core part of any government agency, and should not be.