Gene Kearns wrote:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts!

And particularly affects:
New York
New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Baltimore, Maryland
Miami, Florida
New Orleans, Louisiana

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to
any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts!

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests.
GWB's first partner when he entered the oil drilling business was Salim
Ben Ladin, Osama's brother. There's probably some private family-
business reason for turning port security over to an Arab firm. This is
one of those changes that will come about by Executive fiat, should it
materialize, as most Democrats in congress oppose it and even many of
the Republicans normally delighted to toe the Administration's line are
courageously speaking out against this ludicrous proposal.

I understand that we can actually consider firing all the TSA employees
who work airport security. It will save the country billions of dollars
per year, as it is rumored that a group of folks currently living in
caves along the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border are willing to do the job
for less than minimum wage. Further rumors suggest that a (totally
unrelated, of course) lecture tour for the immediately retired
President Bush will then be arranged to begin in 2009; $1mm per
appearance at a long series of middle eastern universities.

Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our
southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid
of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat
for an acutal living wage. The $billion or so in savings could be used
to justify another several billion in tax cuts for the folks in the
very highest income brackets.

If we really want to save some dough, we could disband most of our
armed forces. There are some pretty bold mercenaries available right
now, and we could save the taxpayers
countless dollars if we simply took some of the 40% (or whatever)
unemployed in Iraq and put them in charge of our weapons and defense
systems. They would probably work for $1 a day........heck, a lot of
them would gladly *pay* for the privilege.

The cheapest labor to guard the henhouse will almost always turn out to
be.......the fox.
(And I don't mean the so-called news network)

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our
southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid
of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat
for an acutal living wage.

How's that border patrol working?

Pretty well, in places where they're not overwhelmed for various unrelated
reasons.

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our
southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get
rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt.
teat for an acutal living wage.

How's that border patrol working?

Pretty well

So you like the idea of Mexicans getting liquored up and killing people on
the roads? Happens every WEEK 'round here.

How did you draw that conclusion from my words?

Fred Dehl wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:

Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our
southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid
of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat
for an acutal living wage.

How's that border patrol working?

Just exactly as well as it is supposed to.
A "leaky" Mexican border suppresses wages (and thereby increases
corporate profits in the short term) throughout the entire country.
Seattle isn't exactly on the Rio Grande, but if I wanted to hire an
experienced, often fairly skilled worker for a fraction of the wage
demanded by a hard working citizen trying to support a modest house and
small family
I know exactly where to go on any given day and there will be several
dozen to choose from. The fact that Pedro or Manuel is waiting at the
curb, toolbox in hand, and ecstatic to work for $10 an hour (without
any of the normal nuisances like social security, fringe benefits,
workman's comp, or any need to withhold income taxes creating
additional administrative costs) means that if Joe Schwartz, graduate
of advanced carpentry and framing at Local Community College in 1989
wants to come and pound a few nails as well he better get with the
program. If I'm a remodeling contractor reselling the labor to some
homeowner for $75 an hour, my gross is a whole lot better if I pay
Pedro Velasquez $10 and keep $65 than if I have to pay Joe Schwartz $30
an hour, plus $10 in taxes and benefits, and only get to keep $35 an
hour for myself. Bottom line, Pedro works and Joe doesn't- unless Joe
is willing to work a lot cheaper than he's used to.

If you put the working class in charge of border policies, rather than
the privileged class,
you'd have far fewer undocumented workers in the US.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.

On 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, wrote:


Gene Kearns wrote:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts!

And particularly affects:
New York
New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Baltimore, Maryland
Miami, Florida
New Orleans, Louisiana

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to
any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts!

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats

The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests.
GWB's first partner when he entered the oil drilling business was Salim
Ben Ladin, Osama's brother. There's probably some private family-
business reason for turning port security over to an Arab firm. This is
one of those changes that will come about by Executive fiat, should it
materialize, as most Democrats in congress oppose it and even many of
the Republicans normally delighted to toe the Administration's line are
courageously speaking out against this ludicrous proposal.

I understand that we can actually consider firing all the TSA employees
who work airport security. It will save the country billions of dollars
per year, as it is rumored that a group of folks currently living in
caves along the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border are willing to do the job
for less than minimum wage. Further rumors suggest that a (totally
unrelated, of course) lecture tour for the immediately retired
President Bush will then be arranged to begin in 2009; $1mm per
appearance at a long series of middle eastern universities.

Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our
southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid
of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat
for an acutal living wage. The $billion or so in savings could be used
to justify another several billion in tax cuts for the folks in the
very highest income brackets.

If we really want to save some dough, we could disband most of our
armed forces. There are some pretty bold mercenaries available right
now, and we could save the taxpayers
countless dollars if we simply took some of the 40% (or whatever)
unemployed in Iraq and put them in charge of our weapons and defense
systems. They would probably work for $1 a day........heck, a lot of
them would gladly *pay* for the privilege.

The cheapest labor to guard the henhouse will almost always turn out to
be.......the fox.
(And I don't mean the so-called news network)

Not security, port operations.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You can't completely separate the two.

The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the
very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely
devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so.

We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims.

However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US
ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people
into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two
are extremist, religious, fanatics.

Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port
operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does
it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate
into a single, security sensitive industry.

During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against
dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment
camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese
Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly,
I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab
ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the
Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged
P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port
facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially
one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards.
Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And
the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million
over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would
put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You can't completely separate the two.

The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the
very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely
devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so.

We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims.

However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US
ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people
into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two
are extremist, religious, fanatics.

Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port
operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does
it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate
into a single, security sensitive industry.

During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against
dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment
camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese
Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either.


The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be
Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port
operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not
understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of
work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland.
A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not
NYC run there own port?