On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:06:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:01:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need to be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be found
to pay for it.
You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel badly, many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.
Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply something
that's not true.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

It's a mighty fine line, once you get into it.

Don't you get weary of rationalizing Bush's dumb decisions?

Next time you ship a car overseas, or return it to the Port of Baltimore,
you'll see the difference between port security and port operations.
--


That's about as dumb as trailering a boat from here to the Gulf of
California.

OK.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation, John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation, John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my book of
stamps.

--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4ax. com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being
bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be
something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need
to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation, John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my book of
stamps.

I'll also need to see copies of the mail you send your senator, to make sure
you're telling her to stop misappropriating funds that should be spent on
security.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.
--
'Til next time,

John H


Are you really that naive?

We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the
ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self
serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab
owners, though. What's their angle?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4ax .com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being
bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be
something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need
to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation, John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my book of
stamps.

I'll also need to see copies of the mail you send your senator, to make sure
you're telling her to stop misappropriating funds that should be spent on
security.


Now you're sounding like someone else who adds conditions after making an
offer that was accepted.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:22:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.
--
'Til next time,

John H


Are you really that naive?

We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the
ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self
serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab
owners, though. What's their angle?


Again, where did 'ownership' enter into the deal? The job being contracted
is the management of *port operations*. No one is selling the Port of
Baltimore to anyone.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:28:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Are you really that naive?

We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the
ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self
serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab
owners, though. What's their angle?



I've seen nothing happen in the last 50 years that would lead me to
believe any Arab nation is worthy of trust.

Perhaps the extension of some trust to a Muslim country would belay the
idea that the US is against all Muslims.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:sqvmv116tcv4us5dosfabs850blde7tm0o@4ax. com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4a x.com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being
bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be
something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the
US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need
to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can
be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation,
John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between
port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the
operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my book
of
stamps.

I'll also need to see copies of the mail you send your senator, to make
sure
you're telling her to stop misappropriating funds that should be spent on
security.


Now you're sounding like someone else who adds conditions after making an
offer that was accepted.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Hey...I've written the same kind of letter to MY chumps. You can do it!

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:05:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:sqvmv116tcv4us5dosfabs850blde7tm0o@4ax .com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4 ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being
bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be
something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the
US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need
to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can
be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation,
John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between
port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the
operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my book
of
stamps.

I'll also need to see copies of the mail you send your senator, to make
sure
you're telling her to stop misappropriating funds that should be spent on
security.


Now you're sounding like someone else who adds conditions after making an
offer that was accepted.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Hey...I've written the same kind of letter to MY chumps. You can do it!


I didn't say I wouldn't do it. I questioned the establishment of conditions
after the offer was made and accepted.

Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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