Its not the rider portion

Post #247,234 by bepatient 3/8/06 3:25:22 PM Reply	Its not the rider portion its the "we've got a bill here than ensures that all infrastructure projects will heretoforever be "only American". If they want to attach the deal to the war funding...thats beltway politics being played by the rules. now weve had discussion of those rules and the fact that I don't like them...and prefer the methodology of one item per vote like most states have...but more of a concern to me here is the "lets legislate protectionism, nationalism and/or racism" because of the 2 companies that were bidding for our port business, one was British and one was UAE...and the UAE won. It took opposition weeks before they could latch on to one glimmer of why it was bad..that at some point someone somewhere may actually get an idea of our port security. It initially started (and is still described by many) as handing the job of securing our port to the UAE. Sorry, I don't think the deal included outsourcing of the Coast Guard and the Dept of Treasury/Customs...only scheduling deliveries. And, in case you want to continue to agree with all these inside the beltway windbags...THE BEST WAY TO SECURE OUR PORTS IS TO EXIT SCREEN AT POINT OF ORIGIN. If the "dirty bomb" makes it to Port of Newark...its to damned late. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,235 by Yendor 3/8/06 3:41:09 PM Reply	Problem with that solution... THE BEST WAY TO SECURE OUR PORTS IS TO EXIT SCREEN AT POINT OF ORIGIN. If the "dirty bomb" makes it to Port of Newark...its to damned late. I agree that if the bomb makes it to Newark, it's too late. However, screening prior to departure would ensure safety only for those who play by the rules. If the captain and crew of one of the ships bound for the US is crooked and intent on getting something into the US, what's to stop them from having a rendezvous en-route? And then, under your proposal, we shouldn't need to scan upon entry, and so then the cargo is free to roam the country. How is this better? -YendorMike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #247,260 by bepatient 3/8/06 5:55:49 PM Reply	Couple of things One...you don't just pull up to a containership in midocean...these things are tracked pretty religiously by lots of relevent authorities. Even so, container seal inspection is much simpler than full scan and tamper tags and other such electronics are being developed and deployed by the industries involved. By end of this year, we will have 100% capability of nuke screening internally. Thats just building a sensor grid at the offload dock. Companies that have huge infrastructure requiring container transit (WalMart, Home Depot) already have security on the ground in SE Asia that verify contents and seals of all their cargo pre-shipment. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,271 by Another Scott 3/8/06 7:36:26 PM Reply	Does anyone really think it's going to happen that way? 18kB It's gotten a lot of press, and a lot of people are worried about it, but I don't expect any WMD shipment or any attack to be mounted from a standard shipping container that's been compromised. Rather, I expect that it'll be something low-key, if it ever happens. Like a fishing boat, or a pleasure craft. The Coast Guard can't search everything that comes near the US coast. They certainly don't stop all the drugs that reach the US that way. What's to stop someone from FedEx-ing or using the USPS to mail a WMD to the US? (Yes, FedEx does have security, and packages are inspected. But it's not 100% secure either.) Obviously, we need ways to inspect cargo, and suspect cargo should be checked before it reaches a US port facility. But I don't expect a problem to happen via that route. If we dump billions into securing the ports and don't pay attention to less secure routes, we'll be setting ourselves up for a fall. :-( For example, I'd be more worried about an attack on a petroleum tank farm in Newark than security at the Newark ports, myself. [image\|http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/PLX006932.jpg\|0\|Newark Tank Farm\|261\|400] FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #247,240 by a6l6e6x 3/8/06 4:11:21 PM Reply	Re: "one was British and one was UAE...and the UAE won." Dubai Ports World bought the British firm that had the port management contracts. The purchase as approved by British courts. None of this has much to do with Dubai Ports World, a reputable company based in the United Arab Emirates. The firm just acquired a British shipping firm, and has taken over its contracts to manage terminals in six U.S. ports. [link\|http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=39423&Section=Opinion\|Link]. Alex When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
Post #247,241 by jb4 3/8/06 4:28:31 PM Reply	Fain enough... ..although as Yendor said, there weren't two companies bidding, there was one company buying another..and the buyer was of Arab origin. HTH jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #247,242 by Yendor 3/8/06 4:30:57 PM Reply	I didn't say that... ...Alex-the-Devil did. :) -YendorMike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #247,244 by jb4 3/8/06 4:36:06 PM Reply	Ooops! How can you mislink something without a link? Oh, yeah, just have baby shit for memory! (But doncha just wish you had said it? Just a little...?) jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #247,257 by lincoln 3/8/06 5:44:32 PM Reply	IcLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #247256 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=247256\|IcLRPD] lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #247,255 by bepatient 3/8/06 5:44:20 PM Reply	Minor nit but you are correct. It was a purchase. The point was that we don't have companies really capable of doing it. Thats the indictment. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,258 by boxley 3/8/06 5:50:55 PM Reply	terms of the purchase are suspect that no reveiw by the US or the deal was off right to hire/fire all steveadores, thats a crock, make it a condition that they use the longshoremen. Those guys would sniff out a wrong cargo in a heartbeat if there was a buck involved. my 2 cents. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #247,259 by lincoln 3/8/06 5:55:15 PM Reply	I heard on the radio that the Dubai company wanted the right to store all documents back at the corporate headquarters in the UAE. That would make it awfully difficult for US lawyers and politicians to request and receive them for inspection. lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #247,290 by Silverlock 3/8/06 9:50:32 PM Reply	What about the Israel boycott issue? I thought The US had a prohibition against doing business with companies that participate on the ban of trade with Israel. U.S. law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel. [link\|http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/8556/Dubai_Ports_Company_Active_In_Israel_Boycott.html\|Link] Since Dubai Ports World is a wholly owned subsidiary of the government of Dubai, I think there might be a problem here. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #247,291 by boxley 3/8/06 9:52:06 PM Reply	ssh, dubai does trade with Israel thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #247,293 by Silverlock 3/8/06 10:03:41 PM Reply	So they break the law in interest of profit? That sounds familiar. Just as in my country the rule of law is used to punish those who order torture be done in contravention of said law, I'm sure the criminals of Dubai who trade with Israel against their law will be punished in similar fashion. Man, it must be the way I tell 'em. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #247,318 by bepatient 3/9/06 8:44:45 AM Reply	What law is that? Can't break one that doesn't exist. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,322 by Silverlock 3/9/06 9:20:31 AM Reply	There you go again. Throwing the cold dash of facts on a hot, steaming rant. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #247,325 by bepatient 3/9/06 10:05:50 AM Reply	Oops. sorry. Let me help UAE are our friends. They are a western style federalised group of small states...and damnit, they're generally nice guys. Besides, all they are responsible for is scheduling cargo. Offloading with be longshoremen. Security will still be coast guard, customs, DHS. What is the big deal? While it may be "justified"...its racism. And they want to pass a law that says only US companies can handle infrastructure. Wasn't McVeigh a US citizen? Wouldn't we be disqualified on the same grounds? Don't we have an equal population of psychos among us? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,331 by Silverlock 3/9/06 10:24:39 AM Reply	Minor nit "9/11 changed everthing". After years of fear mongering, the Administration reaps what it sows. It may, objectivly, be racism. But that they expected it to pass without a shitstorm reveals an appalling lack of awareness. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #247,335 by bepatient 3/9/06 10:48:16 AM Reply	No argument there but I don't think it even made it to that level until the newspapers broke it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #247,337 by broomberg 3/9/06 10:50:31 AM Reply	Well duh! but I don't think it even made it to that level until the newspapers broke it. Kind of tough for a shitstorm to be kicked up until the population has a hint of what is going on.
Post #247,323 by admin 3/9/06 9:40:29 AM Reply	Absolutely not. They steal underwear in the interest of Profit! Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #247,327 by bepatient 3/9/06 10:06:59 AM Reply	The dreaded plot.... ...of international panty raids! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!