05-21-2006, 12:34 AM | #301 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
"". As one of the SN's (well I'm Indian, but its not like you lot can tell the difference. ), this is exactly what this deal is about. |
|
05-21-2006, 12:40 AM | #302 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
i guess Im more offended by that terminology than most people are. okay, Ill reorganize the use of that word in my brain but man do I hate that, and most racial slurs....perhaps im oversensitive being jewish, I dunno.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 05-21-2006 at 12:41 AM. |
05-21-2006, 01:40 AM | #303 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2006, 08:53 AM | #304 | ||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
|
I love how bases his knowledge on a subject by a couple of news articles he read. Flasch, there's these things called 'books.' You should trying reading one of them for a change. I bet you might even find one on port security and how the Coast Guard conducts it.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-21-2006, 09:17 AM | #305 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Im wondering if we shouldnt be on eachother's ignore lists since all you do is troll about in the USS Flasch186. Instead of debate you attack and attack and attack, I wouldve thought it would get old. Try to stay on point from now on thanks...
In reference to the attack above, I would say that I continue to read and absorb information long after Ive formed an opinion on a topic...Im able to flip flop based on new info, whether right or wrong. I dont see you ever giving yourself the opportunity to do the same, if its a lefty seeming article, "you cant trust it" and if it supports your opinion which coincidentally is usually the opposite of mine (the person who you just so coincidentally hate [but that has nothing to do with politics - coincidentally]) than we aren't listening/reading it right. convenient it all seems, from top to bottom... So you are saying that the Coast Guard DOESN'T forewarn boats it is going to board for safety inspections? So what I said about the statistics is untrue? It doesnt make sense?
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 05-21-2006 at 09:27 AM. |
05-21-2006, 09:38 AM | #306 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
No, that's not how I read it: Quote:
|
||
05-21-2006, 06:03 PM | #307 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Where did you read that security inspections were tipped in advance? That's the problem I'm having with the article. It talks about both safety and security inspections. It clearly cites that safety inspections are mentioned in advanced. Then the only reference to security inspections, it says they are not tipped in advance. Then it says that inspections should not be tipped in advance, but doesn't reference security in particular. That's confusing. Because I agree that security inspections should not be tipped in advance, that defeats the purpose. But I'm not so sure that port traffic should come to a complete stop for an unprepared/surprised crew when it comes to a routine safety inspection. So with what limited knowledge I have of safety inspections, I don't think I would mind that they are tipped two days in advance to keep traffic moving. Once you get past the very clear suggestive headline, it really becomes quite unclear. Wouldn't you agree? Last edited by Dutch : 05-21-2006 at 06:04 PM. |
|
05-22-2006, 09:26 AM | #308 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
The crucial paragraph is, I believe, this one: Quote:
Which is, I'll agree, very confusing. The bolded part is obviously a security check, not a safety check, which means one of two things: 1. Security and safety checks can be, and are, rolled together, and thus a ship given advance notice of a safety check is also being given advance notice of a security check. 2. They're not, but the journalist is conflating the two because they are either a) lazy or b) pushing a particular viewpoint. Quote:
Yes, absolutely. However, it's probably a moot point since so few ships are inspected anyway. In my opinion, only when we can get to the point when a significant proportion of ships are inspected should we start worrying about the processes used to inspect them. |
|||
05-22-2006, 12:46 PM | #309 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
I guess this particular journalist didn't need to have a strong understanding of "writing clearly" in order to get his degree in journalism. Hopefully there will be a follow-up article sometime so we can get a better understanding of what all these different people are saying.
As for your last point. We are racing to get there. But technology is not up to speed. It may be 5, 10, or maybe even 20 years before we can even remotely be confident of cargo inspections that don't bring our import business to it's knees. |
05-22-2006, 01:14 PM | #310 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
I disagree. Where there's a will, there's a way. If terrorism is indeed the greatest threat we face, then surely no challenge should be too great to ensure our security?
Perhaps instead of sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border (to stop the Mexicans from crossing the border with dirty bombs? ), send them to the ports, and give them all Geiger counters. Seriously, though, I don't think the problem is necessarily one of technology, but one of attention. It has already been said that perhaps the biggest reason so few ships are inspected is that the manpower to do so is simply not there. So, hire more people, right? After all, this was what was done with the TSA. Can not the same principle be applied to port security? Then, move on to technology. What we have here is a process challenge, first-and-foremost. However, we're talking about an industry that already deals with, and has largely solved, massive transportation/transhipment challenges. They have already overlaid process upon process, to create an efficient supply chain, both in response to market forces, client demands, and government regulations. Surely the shipping industry, working in concert with the government, can devise an effective, and efficient inspection regime? This all can be done. The only thing it lack is the political will to do so. The political will to take money from X and apply it to this Y. And we know our politicians would rather spend their time making English the national language and other such BS. |
05-22-2006, 05:58 PM | #311 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Question: How many terrorist actions have resulted from inadequate port security so far?
|
05-22-2006, 06:11 PM | #312 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Go back in time, and ask how many terrorist attacks have involved hijacking a plane, and then crashing it into a building full of people. It is an unfair question, but my point is that we can't wait until it happens to take the problem seriously. |
|
05-22-2006, 06:17 PM | #313 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
I agree, I just don't know how we can say that it is currently inadequate. |
|
05-22-2006, 06:19 PM | #314 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Oh I dunno... 5% of containers being checked and various commissions saying it is inadequate .
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
05-22-2006, 06:21 PM | #315 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
great point, and to Cronin's I would say that a simple statistical analysis of the numbers would lead people from both sides of the aisle to agree that we, as a country, would certainly say that a <5% "scan rate" would be inadequate for the day and age we're in.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
05-22-2006, 06:26 PM | #316 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
What does the Coast Guard say? And what are the political biases of the various commisions? I mean, I don't neccesarily disagree that things need change, I'm just saying that I have heard people with important sounding titles say things like "our school systems are completely inadequate" and "our military is completely outdated" and other things which defy common sense. So, just because this idea (that port security is inadequate) correlates with common sense, doesn't mean I'm totally prepared to swallow it. I agree that it is important; but I'm not convinced it's inadequate. |
|
05-22-2006, 07:34 PM | #317 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Certainly on it's face, it is inadequate. I don't think there can really be much debate about that. I'm not sure it is as bad as it appears, but then again less than 5% appears to be pretty darn bad. Now that might be mitigated somewhat, if say that small percentage were targetted for inspection based on triggering some set of criteria. I don't know how the system works, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people claiming it is woefully lacking. Combine that with very few, if any voices saying that we're doing an adequate job. |
|
05-22-2006, 08:18 PM | #318 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
I know Navy task force interdiction missions in the Med have a reason to board a ship for search. There is no randomness about it. And the total ammount of ships that are stopped and search is probably insignificant, but reasonably precise. That is a bit different than port security, but there is probably a good bit of information on ships coming and going. And I can probably guarantee that if any of them have a "?" on them, that they will be stopped. The problem that I can see with that is obviously that you can't stop and search what you aren't aware of. But you have to be smart. You can't just freak out and shut down shipping to search every last ship from front to back (fore to aft, or whatever in Navy terms). If we ever did that, the terrorists wouldn't even have to do anything to see us suffer. International terrorism is very well orchestrated when left to it's own devices. It's primary mission is to hit us (the "west") where we are weak. If our port security is weak, they will keep that option open. If we spend a billion dollars a year to protect our ports and they still want to hit us, they'll find a way. Provided they ever get back to the level of effectiveness they were at on 9/11, that is. That's one of the reasons I fully support our aggressive/offensive approach to fighting terrorists "over there". It's simply more effective than trying to predict what they will do and defend against it. Last edited by Dutch : 05-22-2006 at 08:20 PM. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|