ExiledInIllinois Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I was hoping you'd show up because I thought you would know at the real world level. Doesn't everyone have to answer to, and be controlled by the respective Ports Authority? In effect, Government Oversight? 608438[/snapback] Yes. Do you want to answer to some pencil pushing geek that can't carry his wait in salt? Government oversight sucks... They don't jack about what is going on in the field. Want to come see our 4K dollar "smoking shelter" that egineering division needed to oversee? If they would have just listened to the "boots on the ground"... They could have saved a bundle... Let alone some guys high priced salary sitting in some office 200 miles away. They "push" dinasours like me out and who is there to get in their way? A contractor is looking out for number one. Sure you have the stereotypical "lazy" gov'tal employee... It doesn't have to be that way... You do the job right, manage it right... Things are so much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Was I really the first one to clue in to this? Are we still the only two to figure this out? I mean, it seemed pretty obvious the moment one idiot was saying "Iraq is a UN problem, we can't do it alone" the same time another idiot was saying "Iraq is a national security problem, we don't need the UN" way back in late 2002. That was a pretty good clue that, right or wrong, they couldn't explain themselves for sh--... 609077[/snapback] I understand what you guys are saying... And sorry for replying so much... I am at home thank God! and I started off trying to fix my wife's notebook and for some reason I came here... The most expressive person in the world, best PR isn't gonna get the correct message out there... It defies logic. It is like driving a Hyundai into the Ford plant parking when you go to work... People will never see any logic in it. You just don't do it... No matter how right you feel. It isn't about logic. I am and have been all "cranked" up about this for sometime... Everything that Bib and you state has been going on now and in the past is just flat out wrong. The press is just firing it up... Sure... I just don't trust all the business layers... I am pretty basic hands on kinda guy. This seems to complicated for my simple blood. I am not xenophobic... And it isn't racial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 My job in Corps would not grind to a halt... We are totally self-sufficient. I can't think of one thing that we have had a contractor do... Maybe the security upgrade (fence and gate) and that is FUBARed beyond belief... Finally our in-house IT guy is straightening out the wiring and electronics... We could have easily had the "bull crew" on the fence... From our in house floating plants to maintain all the heavy machinary and what not... To the day to day operations of the field site... Again... We do everything. Something most in the government don't like. We are still old school Army here along the river. Hoo RAH! 609253[/snapback] From where I'm at, you are the exception rather than the rule. Most (if not all) of our IT services are contracted out, and I know of at least three other posters that do them. Most of the "heavy lifting" in researching and producing documentation for things is done by contractors. A large percentage of intelligence analysis is done by contractors. Maybe that's more of a DC thing. I DO see people hop between contractor and GS pretty regularly, so if you made the actual government bigger, in terms of government employees you'd probably have the same people doing the work anyway. There's different types of support contractors, too. I'm an Advice and Assistance contractor, on-site full time and basically part of the org. Most of the others in my area are a different category and work by task order on specific things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Not being against the sale of a part of one corporation to another is proof that Bush is putting corporations in charge of everything? Corporations have been in control of these functions at the ports since before George was president. George Washington that is. If you want to make arguments about Bush helping "corporations" go ahead. When you use this as an example you blow your credibility. 608472[/snapback] I see your point, but for the president who considers himself a "Washington rebel", and the one who says "don't worry about security, I'll take care of that", doesn't it seem a bit odd for him (or whoever makes his decisions for him) to be making this kind of judgement. My original post was taking exception to the assertion that this whole thing was an issue, because of American unions. This is one instance where I think the unions, and the American public have every right to be concerned. I would rather American union members be overpaid to secure our ports, than a corporation that seems to have only an allegence to money. As far as my "credibility" goes, seriously, who gives a crap? I appreciate your comcern though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I would rather American union members be overpaid to secure our ports, than a corporation that seems to have only an allegence to money. 609642[/snapback] And just where, precisely, do you think a labor union's allegiances lie? (I'll give you a hint: It's spelled "money".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I would rather American union members be overpaid to secure our ports, than a corporation that seems to have only an allegence to money. 609642[/snapback] Oh the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't think the Coast Guard is unionized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't think the Coast Guard is unionized. 609654[/snapback] Well there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't think the Coast Guard is unionized. 609654[/snapback] Nor is U.S. Customs or DHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nor is U.S. Customs or DHS. 609673[/snapback] Nor the ATF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 The Bush Administration's handling of the press is the most inept in recent memory. Because they have avoided press conferences and have treated the media as a hostile camp altogether, they have missed any chance to convey or market any message by transitional means of stadard network coverage or major newsprint. What they have relied on: the conservative outlets, talk radio, punditry, and weeklies, has proved to be an unreliable medium as well. If the president is off message, these are not necessarily the most open minded sources for a debate of national interest with full disclosure of facts. The administration's failure to engage the media has so hamstrung their agenda that there is no reliable vehicle to transmit their message. They have screwed themselves. I am no Bush supporter. But, I do believe this inability has become bad for the country. 609089[/snapback] Limbaugh seems to rail about it every other day - for several years. Nothing new and nothing not obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I happen to work with companies who provide container security: tracking, monitoring, surveillance etc. Containers entering this country from around the world are probably one of, if not THE, weakest link in the chain. Yeah, marine surveyors can inspect and "seal" the containers at the port of origination, but that's one data point. When they get here, the authorities simply can't inspect them all. Marine surveyors do, but they are retained by the companies who are receiving the goods (I have done marine surveying). They only inspect the ones they're retained to check. Working with these companies I have a pretty good idea of what comes in, what's inspected, and what can be accounted for at any given time. Letting the Arabs manage our port security is ludicrous untill and unless the carriers all equip their containers with equipment that will monitor and transmit data over both terrestrial and satellite networks (so coverage is constant). That's so far the best way to be safe... I have several DHS projects underway doing this, as well as tracking many of the public transportation vehicles you ride daily. The technology is good and the cost is coming down. DHS ought to put their money there not with Dubya's Arab buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I love it when you talk dirty. That said, the terminal destination is not the first place we involve security. Without going into detail, we have systems in place to screen stuff at the stuff point. It's called layered defense. As fugged up as we are, that's one of the few things we're doing well. Oh, 5% of containers. Sound bite warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I love it when you talk dirty. That said, the terminal destination is not the first place we involve security. Without going into detail, we have systems in place to screen stuff at the stuff point. It's called layered defense. As fugged up as we are, that's one of the few things we're doing well. Oh, 5% of containers. Sound bite warning. 610091[/snapback] Latest on Scarborough Country is that Dubai Ports is backing off or delaying the deal to let the controversy die down. Apparantly they already run or own CSX railroad. Note: There apparantly is a link between Dubai Ports and the Carlyle Group with which GH Bush as been a part of and has additionaly links to the Bush family, Neil specifically. It explains how the connections for the deal probably went down, but it does not necessarily...can't believe I defending the President's decision...however, mean there is a security issue here. I have a friend/lawyer who specializes in Maritime law on the Senate Committee overseaing all of this, and while I don't dare bother him now, security at the ports he constantly says is whoefully inadequate. That begs the question, does having Dubai Ports running the ports, a company that runs many other international ports, make us any less safe? Politically, I think the position of the President is difficult. Also, I Dubai is not the biggest oil producer in the area, but is one of the biggest shippers out the UAE. Its was originally considered a good country to smuggle through its ports. Does that mean it still is? Additionally, from all I have read Dubai Ports International has a good reputation. At least maybe a healthy debate has started on upgrading the security of our Ports. The 5% number quoted regularly about as a total inspected v. 100% of those considered high risk that are inspected seemTs to be back to old stat quote of lies, damn lies and statistics. Not sure that means much when we are still discovering tunnels coming from Mexico. Terrorists probably had figured easier ways to get around any inspections. Anyway, it is interesting to watch the politics play out, while still trying to wade through what is legit info and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 And just where, precisely, do you think a labor union's allegiances lie? (I'll give you a hint: It's spelled "money".) 609646[/snapback] I would agree with that too... But, it is also committed to Americans working and bringing pay home to American families... You can't leave that fact out. At least it stays statesside. This isn't about race or xenophobia with me... It is about keeping Americans working... And not just the CEO's. I think the US should get first crack. I mean Jesus Christ! Now even the managerial jobs are leaving. Also... Will everybody affiliated with this reputable company be given security clearance?... Who do they hire on down down the chain?... How does information travel through the corporate/country (UAE) mak-up? This company may be a good fit, but I believe more questions should be asked... About all aspects of how they do business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't think the Coast Guard is unionized. 609654[/snapback] They are military. Even if they were a government agency "type"... They would have the choice to unionize if they wanted to? Like I said... I am fed DoD... We have a local... Some employees choose to be in the union and some don't. I think we hashed it out before about their swift DOT departure and the rapid Article 10 powers they possess. They still are VERY MUCH overtasked. Money is flowing in, but at times... Even they don't have a clue what is going on. We are getting more interagency help nowadays... But, there is a long way, A VERY LONG WAY to go... Still alot of "fiefdoms" out there... And that concerns me... Especially with working with MNC's... I can just see the tension and pissing contests becoming 10 fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nor is U.S. Customs or DHS. 609673[/snapback] Could be happening: GovExec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Nor the ATF. 609679[/snapback] From my article above... They should have the choice... They don't know... But, who knows? Winch noted that in addition to NTEU and AFGE, employees will have the option to vote for "no union." Maybe this will carry into the ATF... Etc...? Like I said... What is wrong with choice... Peope can opt in or opt out if they want... Again, right now... I work for the DoD and half the people at my site choose to be in the union... Half don't belong and don't pay dues. What is wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Latest on Scarborough Country is that Dubai Ports is backing off or delaying the deal to let the controversy die down. Apparantly they already run or own CSX railroad. Note: There apparantly is a link between Dubai Ports and the Carlyle Group with which GH Bush as been a part of and has additionaly links to the Bush family, Neil specifically. It explains how the connections for the deal probably went down, but it does not necessarily...can't believe I defending the President's decision...however, mean there is a security issue here. I have a friend/lawyer who specializes in Maritime law on the Senate Committee overseaing all of this, and while I don't dare bother him now, security at the ports he constantly says is whoefully inadequate. That begs the question, does having Dubai Ports running the ports, a company that runs many other international ports, make us any less safe? Politically, I think the position of the President is difficult. Also, I Dubai is not the biggest oil producer in the area, but is one of the biggest shippers out the UAE. Its was originally considered a good country to smuggle through its ports. Does that mean it still is? Additionally, from all I have read Dubai Ports International has a good reputation. At least maybe a healthy debate has started on upgrading the security of our Ports. The 5% number quoted regularly about as a total inspected v. 100% of those considered high risk that are inspected seemTs to be back to old stat quote of lies, damn lies and statistics. Not sure that means much when we are still discovering tunnels coming from Mexico. Terrorists probably had figured easier ways to get around any inspections. Anyway, it is interesting to watch the politics play out, while still trying to wade through what is legit info and what is not. 610159[/snapback] It would be nice if they moved faster on the detectors. Sense of what is the greatest threat has to come into play, or there wouldn't be any commerce at all. At the same time, I don't think there is any credible evidence that AQ is anywhere near having a nuke. Doesn't mean it can't happen, though. What else could come in by container that would even be a problem? These container operators have established relationships with, and in many cases own the vessels transporting the cargo, don't they? From a security standpoint, I think I'd rather have close relationships with big time globally savvy operators that have a sense of who is doing what than suddenly turn it over to Joe's Stevedoring from Long Beach that probably doesn't. I brought up COSCO the other day, I don't have a problem with them either - and I seriously consider China more of an overall threat than I do Dubai. We aren't the biggest and the best in every single thing in the world. The shipping business seems to be one of those areas. Also, in many respects this doesn't have a thing to do with us. P&O operates over 100 facilities in 19 countries. 6 facilities are in the US. What are the international legal implications if the US, without a compelling reason other than "feelies" screws up a multi-billion dollar business deal between two other countries? At the least, it certainly can't help our trade relationships. And as far as stirring up the masses goes, I bet Al Jazeera is getting some mileage out of this. Sure looks like we really love our middle eastern friends, doesn't it? But, the message is "all arabs are not terrorists". If I were sitting in Cairo watching all this, I'd say "yeah, right..." too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 It would be nice if they moved faster on the detectors. Sense of what is the greatest threat has to come into play, or there wouldn't be any commerce at all. At the same time, I don't think there is any credible evidence that AQ is anywhere near having a nuke. Doesn't mean it can't happen, though. What else could come in by container that would even be a problem? These container operators have established relationships with, and in many cases own the vessels transporting the cargo, don't they? From a security standpoint, I think I'd rather have close relationships with big time globally savvy operators that have a sense of who is doing what than suddenly turn it over to Joe's Stevedoring from Long Beach that probably doesn't. I brought up COSCO the other day, I don't have a problem with them either - and I seriously consider China more of an overall threat than I do Dubai. We aren't the biggest and the best in every single thing in the world. The shipping business seems to be one of those areas. Also, in many respects this doesn't have a thing to do with us. P&O operates over 100 facilities in 19 countries. 6 facilities are in the US. What are the international legal implications if the US, without a compelling reason other than "feelies" screws up a multi-billion dollar business deal between two other countries? At the least, it certainly can't help our trade relationships. And as far as stirring up the masses goes, I bet Al Jazeera is getting some mileage out of this. Sure looks like we really love our middle eastern friends, doesn't it? But, the message is "all arabs are not terrorists". If I were sitting in Cairo watching all this, I'd say "yeah, right..." too. 610286[/snapback] I hear you. You make valid points and tend to agree with you... IMO, I just think that things need to be looked at closer and the deal "opened up." On another note... My son got the Lego version of the Maersk Sealand from Santa... I am going home at 0800 to simulate possible scenarios (he'll be in school and won't mind)... I will make sure his little sister isn't looking... Don't want to scare her with any "dirty bomb" scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts