FEC: Your regulatory proposal draws 92 inches
The Online Coaliton has written a letter to the Federal Election Commission over possible regulation of blogs and websites. Acting on the premise that there are very few ideas so good that attention from bureaucrats and lawyers can't mess 'em up, You should read the letter and add your name.http://www.onlinecoalition.com
11 March 2005
10 March 2005
MERPAC TO MEET ON TRAINING/FITNESS OF MERCHANT MARINE PERSONNEL
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) and its working groups will meet to discuss various issues relating to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. MERPAC advises the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to the training, qualifications, licensing, and certification of seamen serving in the U.S. merchant marine. All meetings will be open to the public.
MERPAC will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, April 6, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. These meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2005. Written material and requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee should reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 22, 2005.
MERPAC will meet on both days in the Classroom Building Auditorium of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School, 27050 St. Michaels Road, Easton, MD 21601. Further directions regarding the location of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School may be obtained by contacting 410-822-9600.
Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Mark Gould, Commandant (G-MSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
For further information contact: For questions on this notice, contact Mr. Gould, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 202-267-6890, fax 202-267-4570, or e-mail mgould@comdt.uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended).
Agenda of Meeting on April 5, 2005
The full committee will meet to discuss the objectives for the meeting. The working groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate:
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) and its working groups will meet to discuss various issues relating to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. MERPAC advises the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters relating to the training, qualifications, licensing, and certification of seamen serving in the U.S. merchant marine. All meetings will be open to the public.
MERPAC will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, April 6, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. These meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2005. Written material and requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee should reach the Coast Guard on or
before March 22, 2005.
MERPAC will meet on both days in the Classroom Building Auditorium of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School, 27050 St. Michaels Road, Easton, MD 21601. Further directions regarding the location of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School may be obtained by contacting 410-822-9600.
Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Mr. Mark Gould, Commandant (G-MSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
For further information contact: For questions on this notice, contact Mr. Gould, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 202-267-6890, fax 202-267-4570, or e-mail mgould@comdt.uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended).
Agenda of Meeting on April 5, 2005
The full committee will meet to discuss the objectives for the meeting. The working groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate:
- Task Statement 30, concerning utilizing military sea service for STCW (that's Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping. Comes from the International Maritime Organization; Caesarian honorable men, one and all) certifications;
- Task Statement 47, concerning recommendations on knowledge and practical qualifications for
engineers at the operational and management levels to serve on steam propelled vessels; - Task Statement 48, concerning recommendations to develop training and service requirements for personnel with limited engineer licenses to obtain STCW OICEW (that's Officer in Charge of an Engineer Watch, for those of you who don't speak STCW-ese) and unlimited third assistant engineer licenses; and
- Task Statement 49, concerning recommendations for use of a model sea course project in conjunction with an approved program for officer in charge of an engineering
watch coming up through the hawse pipe. - In addition, new working groups may be formed to address issues proposed by the Coast Guard, MERPAC members, or the public. All task statements may be viewed at the MERPAC Web site
at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/merpac/merpac.htm. At the end of the day, the working groups will make a report to the full committee on what has been accomplished in their meetings. No action will be taken on these reports on this date.
Agenda of Meeting on April 6, 2005
The agenda comprises the following:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Working Groups' Reports:
(a) Task Statement 30, concerning utilizing military sea service for STCW certifications;
(b) Task Statement 47, concerning recommendations on knowledge and practical qualifications for engineers at the operational and management levels to serve on steam propelled vessels;
(c) Task Statement 48, concerning recommendations to develop training and service requirements for personnel with limited engineer licenses to obtain STCW OICEW and unlimited third assistant engineer licenses;
(d) Task Statement 49, concerning recommendations for use of a model sea course project in conjunction with an approved program for officer in charge of an engineering watch coming up through the hawse pipe, and - (e) Other task statements which may have been adopted for discussion and action.
(3) Other items to be discussed:
(a) Standing Committee--Prevention Through People.
(b) Briefings concerning on-going projects of interest to MERPAC.
(c) Other items brought up for discussion by the committee or the public.
INTERTANKO AND INDUSTRY ALLIANCE PETITION TO JOIN USCG COMPLAINT AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS OIL SPILL ACT
INTERTANKO has allied itself with American Waterways Operators, Chamber of Shipping of America and BIMCO to petition to join the U.S. Government Complaint against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The industry alliance sees the State Oil Spill Act as a threat to safety and to environmental protection.
Which is a polite way of saying that the People's Republic of Taxachusetts has demonstrated the old political maxim, "It's way more important to be seen doing something than it is to worry doing something effective." State regulation of interstate commerce is unconstitutional, and there are enough shysters in the state gov't and legislature that they should know that.
The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO); the American Waterways Operators (AWO) - the national trade association for the American tugboat, towboat and barge industry; the Chamber of Shipping of America; and the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) formally petitioned this week to join a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Government against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning an unconstitutional
oil spill law enacted there.
Not that these yahoos have clean hands. There have been times -- once or twice -- when the abovementioned retromingent pithecoids have used -- or attempted to use -- government regulation to squash their competition.
The lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Action No. 05-10112 JLT) on January 18, 2005, charges that the Oil Spill Act impermissibly treads on federal jurisdiction, specifically, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, in making rules governing maritime operations in U.S. waters. It also asserts that comprehensive federal regulation already exists in the areas covered by the state Act, and that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal laws and regulations override any attempt by a state government to legislate or regulate in the same areas. This same provision was upheld when INTERTANKO won its long-running legal battle against the State of Washington by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000).
Beware, my friends. There are few ideas so good they can't be screwed up through the attention of shysters and politicians
The Act was signed into law in Massachusetts on August 4, 2004 in response to a 2003 tank barge accident that resulted in an oil spill in Buzzards Bay. It regulates oil-carrying vessels travelling in interstate and/or international commerce while such vessels are within the waters of Massachusetts. The industry asserts that such interstate commerce requires a single, clear set of federal regulatory standards that are uniform from state to state and locality to locality, in
order to avoid confusion that could lead to accidents.
We'll let them pat themselves on the back...
INTERTANKO’s members represent, on a tonnage basis, approximately 70% of the world’s independently owned (i.e., not government-owned or oil company-owned) self-propelled tank vessel fleet’. Many INTERTANKO members own or operate tank vessels that currently call at ports in Massachusetts while engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.
In submitting this motion to intervene, INTERTANKO stated that its members who call at Massachusetts ports, or are considering doing so, have been adversely affected by the Act. “Our members are subject to being required to equip, man, operate, deploy, and manage their vessels in accordance with the Act when in Massachusetts waters, in a manner different from federal requirements and requirements in other states and countries. The departure of Massachusetts from an extensive federal regulatory scheme poses a burden on and expense to our members.”
The Association continues to point out that “the lack of uniformity impairs federal control of tank vessel safety standards and presents a threat to international maritime safety, as well as to the lives and property of INTERTANKO’s members, their employees, and to the marine environment.” It adds that its members not calling at Massachusetts ports are adversely affected by the Act “to the extent that the Act’s deviations from federal and international requirements constitute impermissible barriers to their use of Massachusetts ports even when their vessels already comply with federal laws and international treaties.”
#####
INTERTANKO has allied itself with American Waterways Operators, Chamber of Shipping of America and BIMCO to petition to join the U.S. Government Complaint against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The industry alliance sees the State Oil Spill Act as a threat to safety and to environmental protection.
Which is a polite way of saying that the People's Republic of Taxachusetts has demonstrated the old political maxim, "It's way more important to be seen doing something than it is to worry doing something effective." State regulation of interstate commerce is unconstitutional, and there are enough shysters in the state gov't and legislature that they should know that.
The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO); the American Waterways Operators (AWO) - the national trade association for the American tugboat, towboat and barge industry; the Chamber of Shipping of America; and the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) formally petitioned this week to join a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Government against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning an unconstitutional
oil spill law enacted there.
Not that these yahoos have clean hands. There have been times -- once or twice -- when the abovementioned retromingent pithecoids have used -- or attempted to use -- government regulation to squash their competition.
The lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Action No. 05-10112 JLT) on January 18, 2005, charges that the Oil Spill Act impermissibly treads on federal jurisdiction, specifically, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard, in making rules governing maritime operations in U.S. waters. It also asserts that comprehensive federal regulation already exists in the areas covered by the state Act, and that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal laws and regulations override any attempt by a state government to legislate or regulate in the same areas. This same provision was upheld when INTERTANKO won its long-running legal battle against the State of Washington by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000).
Beware, my friends. There are few ideas so good they can't be screwed up through the attention of shysters and politicians
The Act was signed into law in Massachusetts on August 4, 2004 in response to a 2003 tank barge accident that resulted in an oil spill in Buzzards Bay. It regulates oil-carrying vessels travelling in interstate and/or international commerce while such vessels are within the waters of Massachusetts. The industry asserts that such interstate commerce requires a single, clear set of federal regulatory standards that are uniform from state to state and locality to locality, in
order to avoid confusion that could lead to accidents.
We'll let them pat themselves on the back...
INTERTANKO’s members represent, on a tonnage basis, approximately 70% of the world’s independently owned (i.e., not government-owned or oil company-owned) self-propelled tank vessel fleet’. Many INTERTANKO members own or operate tank vessels that currently call at ports in Massachusetts while engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.
In submitting this motion to intervene, INTERTANKO stated that its members who call at Massachusetts ports, or are considering doing so, have been adversely affected by the Act. “Our members are subject to being required to equip, man, operate, deploy, and manage their vessels in accordance with the Act when in Massachusetts waters, in a manner different from federal requirements and requirements in other states and countries. The departure of Massachusetts from an extensive federal regulatory scheme poses a burden on and expense to our members.”
The Association continues to point out that “the lack of uniformity impairs federal control of tank vessel safety standards and presents a threat to international maritime safety, as well as to the lives and property of INTERTANKO’s members, their employees, and to the marine environment.” It adds that its members not calling at Massachusetts ports are adversely affected by the Act “to the extent that the Act’s deviations from federal and international requirements constitute impermissible barriers to their use of Massachusetts ports even when their vessels already comply with federal laws and international treaties.”
#####
08 March 2005
MARITIME ACADEMY OBLIGATION
Tired of a few of my fellow maritime academy grads skating their obligation? Here's your chance to sound off:
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) published a 60-day notice and request for comments on this information collection in the
Federal Register (69 FR 69668) on November 30, 2004, indicating comments should be submitted by January 31, 2005.
IOW: We published a note on this subject. Commenting period closed 31 Jan.
One comment was received. The commenter asserted that no waivers should be given, except in the case of medically verified disability, and there is an obligation these students assume and they should pay it. In addition, the commenter indicated that taxpayers are burdened by the costs of this education and they deserve recompense. Also, the commenter asked how many students sought waivers last year and on what grounds.
Out of 300 million Americans, we received one comment.
46 CFR part 310 authorizes the Maritime Administrator to grant waivers in cases where there would be undue hardship or impossibility of performance of the provisions of the agreement, due to accident, illness or other justifiable reason. The regulation also allows for deferments in exceptional cases for entry into a maritime-related graduate course of study, or the graduate
may seek approval to accept maritime-related shoreside employment after first seeking afloat employment. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is cognizant of the obligation of graduates as we review waiver and deferral requests. In 2004, MARAD granted 18 employment determination requests for shoreside employment. These employment determinations were granted for maritime-related shoreside employment on the recommendation from the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, only after the graduates diligently sought afloat employment and were unable to obtain it.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2005.
For further information, contact Rita Jackson, Maritime Administration, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0284; fax: (202) 366-7403; or e-mail: rita.jackson@marad.dot.gov.
Copies of this
collection also can be obtained from that office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Title: Request for Waiver of Service Obligation, Request for Deferment of Service Obligation.
OMB Control Number: 2133-0510.
Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.
Affected Public: The respondents are students and graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and subsidized students or graduates of the State Maritime Academies who request waivers of service obligations.
Forms: MA-935, MA-936 and MA-937.
Abstract: This information collection is essential for determining if a student or graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, or subsidized student or graduate of a State maritime academy, has a waivable situation preventing them from fulfilling the requirements of a service obligation contract.
Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 9 hours.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Tired of a few of my fellow maritime academy grads skating their obligation? Here's your chance to sound off:
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) published a 60-day notice and request for comments on this information collection in the
Federal Register (69 FR 69668) on November 30, 2004, indicating comments should be submitted by January 31, 2005.
IOW: We published a note on this subject. Commenting period closed 31 Jan.
One comment was received. The commenter asserted that no waivers should be given, except in the case of medically verified disability, and there is an obligation these students assume and they should pay it. In addition, the commenter indicated that taxpayers are burdened by the costs of this education and they deserve recompense. Also, the commenter asked how many students sought waivers last year and on what grounds.
Out of 300 million Americans, we received one comment.
46 CFR part 310 authorizes the Maritime Administrator to grant waivers in cases where there would be undue hardship or impossibility of performance of the provisions of the agreement, due to accident, illness or other justifiable reason. The regulation also allows for deferments in exceptional cases for entry into a maritime-related graduate course of study, or the graduate
may seek approval to accept maritime-related shoreside employment after first seeking afloat employment. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is cognizant of the obligation of graduates as we review waiver and deferral requests. In 2004, MARAD granted 18 employment determination requests for shoreside employment. These employment determinations were granted for maritime-related shoreside employment on the recommendation from the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, only after the graduates diligently sought afloat employment and were unable to obtain it.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 6, 2005.
For further information, contact Rita Jackson, Maritime Administration, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0284; fax: (202) 366-7403; or e-mail: rita.jackson@marad.dot.gov.
Copies of this
collection also can be obtained from that office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Title: Request for Waiver of Service Obligation, Request for Deferment of Service Obligation.
OMB Control Number: 2133-0510.
Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.
Affected Public: The respondents are students and graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and subsidized students or graduates of the State Maritime Academies who request waivers of service obligations.
Forms: MA-935, MA-936 and MA-937.
Abstract: This information collection is essential for determining if a student or graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, or subsidized student or graduate of a State maritime academy, has a waivable situation preventing them from fulfilling the requirements of a service obligation contract.
Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 9 hours.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
03 March 2005
The TSA is indeed a test
Courtesy of a much better writer than I:
"The TSA is indeed a test
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857. "
Courtesy of a much better writer than I:
"The TSA is indeed a test
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857. "
01 March 2005
Latest use of ADA to make Lawyers Rich(er).
The little gem of propaganda below is courtesy of your tax dollars: see the link here. Note the "dot-gov" url.
National Council on DisabilitySpector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. —
Background, Legal Issues, and Implications for Persons with Disabilities*
National Council on Disability1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850Washington, DC 20004202-272-2004 Voice202-272-2074 TTY202-272-2022 Fax
Abstract
On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., No. 03-1388, a case that will determine whether foreign-flagged cruise ships serving U.S. ports must comply with the public accommodations provisions contained in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This paper examines the Spector case in detail and concludes that the plain and expansive language of Title III evidences a congressional intent to require cruise ships to comply with Title III (editor note: to the surprise of every four-year-old reading this. The policy analyst writing for this merry band who didn't find a requirement to comply with ADA would be flippin' hamburgers and grateful for the work) Cruise ship owners and operators claim that they and their ships are exempt from the ADA because all of their ships are, with few exceptions, foreign-flagged, and historically under international law, a seagoing vessel need only comply with the laws of the flagging nation when it comes to the regulation of a ship's internal operations. This paper explains that compliance with Title III would not impinge on the internal management prerogatives of cruise lines or conflict with the United States' obligations under international law. Moreover, the contemporary practice of flying what is known as a "flag of convenience" is simply a business decision that only marginally implicates the sovereign interests of the flagging nation. In stark contrast, however, the United States has a significant interest in ending invidious discrimination against persons with disabilities by cruise lines - particularly when cruise lines are headquartered in the United States, base their ships in U.S. ports, draw their clientele almost exclusively from the United States, and advertise and solicit most of their passengers in the United States. In passing the ADA, Congress sought to guarantee "full participation" by persons with disabilities in all aspects of American life. The Supreme Court has an opportunity in Spector to give force and effect to Congress' unequivocal intent by refusing to exempt foreign-flagged cruise ships from Title III of the ADA. To do otherwise would place the Court's imprimatur upon the discriminatory practices of inaccessible cruise lines, and write segregation on the basis of disability into American law.
The little gem of propaganda below is courtesy of your tax dollars: see the link here. Note the "dot-gov" url.
National Council on DisabilitySpector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. —
Background, Legal Issues, and Implications for Persons with Disabilities*
National Council on Disability1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850Washington, DC 20004202-272-2004 Voice202-272-2074 TTY202-272-2022 Fax
Abstract
On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., No. 03-1388, a case that will determine whether foreign-flagged cruise ships serving U.S. ports must comply with the public accommodations provisions contained in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This paper examines the Spector case in detail and concludes that the plain and expansive language of Title III evidences a congressional intent to require cruise ships to comply with Title III (editor note: to the surprise of every four-year-old reading this. The policy analyst writing for this merry band who didn't find a requirement to comply with ADA would be flippin' hamburgers and grateful for the work) Cruise ship owners and operators claim that they and their ships are exempt from the ADA because all of their ships are, with few exceptions, foreign-flagged, and historically under international law, a seagoing vessel need only comply with the laws of the flagging nation when it comes to the regulation of a ship's internal operations. This paper explains that compliance with Title III would not impinge on the internal management prerogatives of cruise lines or conflict with the United States' obligations under international law. Moreover, the contemporary practice of flying what is known as a "flag of convenience" is simply a business decision that only marginally implicates the sovereign interests of the flagging nation. In stark contrast, however, the United States has a significant interest in ending invidious discrimination against persons with disabilities by cruise lines - particularly when cruise lines are headquartered in the United States, base their ships in U.S. ports, draw their clientele almost exclusively from the United States, and advertise and solicit most of their passengers in the United States. In passing the ADA, Congress sought to guarantee "full participation" by persons with disabilities in all aspects of American life. The Supreme Court has an opportunity in Spector to give force and effect to Congress' unequivocal intent by refusing to exempt foreign-flagged cruise ships from Title III of the ADA. To do otherwise would place the Court's imprimatur upon the discriminatory practices of inaccessible cruise lines, and write segregation on the basis of disability into American law.
23 February 2005
MEBA TURNS 130 TODAY
The Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (MEBA) is celebrating its 130th birthday today, February 23. It was back in 1875 when a collection of local marine engineers' association representatives, fed up with the intolerable working conditions of the day, banded together in Cleveland, Ohio. Boiler explosions aboard steamboats and pathetic working conditions coupled with measly paychecks spurred these trailblazers to unite for the protection of mariners. Early on, our forefathers battled for beneficial legislation to certify and license waterborne engineers. They also prevailed in securing U.S. officers - both deck and engine - aboard U.S.-flagships displacing foreign seamen. Those early struggles and many others paved the way for the worker protections and benefits.
MEBA President Ron Davis made a few remarks on the upcoming occasion. "As members of the MEBA we are honored to recognize our great Union on this momentous 130th anniversary. The longevity of the MEBA stems from the inherent strength and cohesiveness of our members that few other labor unions can claim. We stand upon the shoulders of those who came before us and are privileged to build upon the proud foundation they established. As union members, we know that we must work together from a position of strength and unity so that the members who follow us can prosper from the efforts we put forward today."
The Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (MEBA) is celebrating its 130th birthday today, February 23. It was back in 1875 when a collection of local marine engineers' association representatives, fed up with the intolerable working conditions of the day, banded together in Cleveland, Ohio. Boiler explosions aboard steamboats and pathetic working conditions coupled with measly paychecks spurred these trailblazers to unite for the protection of mariners. Early on, our forefathers battled for beneficial legislation to certify and license waterborne engineers. They also prevailed in securing U.S. officers - both deck and engine - aboard U.S.-flagships displacing foreign seamen. Those early struggles and many others paved the way for the worker protections and benefits.
MEBA President Ron Davis made a few remarks on the upcoming occasion. "As members of the MEBA we are honored to recognize our great Union on this momentous 130th anniversary. The longevity of the MEBA stems from the inherent strength and cohesiveness of our members that few other labor unions can claim. We stand upon the shoulders of those who came before us and are privileged to build upon the proud foundation they established. As union members, we know that we must work together from a position of strength and unity so that the members who follow us can prosper from the efforts we put forward today."
18 February 2005
The GAO has published a report called, "Process for Reporting Lessons Learned
from Seaport Exercises Needs Further Attention"
Quoth the mavens:
The framework under which federal agencies would manage a port-terrorism
incident is still evolving. The primary guidance for response, the National
Response Plan, was just issued in January 2005, and the National Incident
Management System, the structure for multiagency coordination, is still
being put in place. As a result, it is too early to determine how well the
complete framework will function in an actual incident.
from Seaport Exercises Needs Further Attention"
Quoth the mavens:
The framework under which federal agencies would manage a port-terrorism
incident is still evolving. The primary guidance for response, the National
Response Plan, was just issued in January 2005, and the National Incident
Management System, the structure for multiagency coordination, is still
being put in place. As a result, it is too early to determine how well the
complete framework will function in an actual incident.
16 February 2005
USCG SEEKING APPLICATIONS FOR LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERWAYS
The Coast Guard is seeking applications for appointment to membership on the Lower Mississippi River Waterways Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC). LMRWSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters relating to the safe navigation of vessels to and from ports on the Lower Mississippi River.
Applications must be completed and postmarked no later than April 30, 2005.
You may request an application form by writing to Commanding OfficerUSCG Marine Safety Office New OrleansAttention: Waterways1615 Poydras StreetNew Orleans, LA 70112;
All application forms must be returned to the following address: Commanding Officer Attn: LMRWSAC Executive Secretary USCG Marine Safety Office, New Orleans1615 Poydras StreetNew Orleans, LA 70112.
For further information, contact LCDR Michael McKean, Executive Secretary of LMRWSAC at (504-628-1555) or LTJG Melissa Owens, Assistant to the Executive Secretary of LMRWSAC at (504-589-4251).
The Coast Guard is seeking applications for appointment to membership on the Lower Mississippi River Waterways Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC). LMRWSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters relating to the safe navigation of vessels to and from ports on the Lower Mississippi River.
Applications must be completed and postmarked no later than April 30, 2005.
You may request an application form by writing to Commanding OfficerUSCG Marine Safety Office New OrleansAttention: Waterways1615 Poydras StreetNew Orleans, LA 70112;
All application forms must be returned to the following address: Commanding Officer Attn: LMRWSAC Executive Secretary USCG Marine Safety Office, New Orleans1615 Poydras StreetNew Orleans, LA 70112.
For further information, contact LCDR Michael McKean, Executive Secretary of LMRWSAC at (504-628-1555) or LTJG Melissa Owens, Assistant to the Executive Secretary of LMRWSAC at (504-589-4251).
15 February 2005
SHIPPING COORDINATING COMMITTEE SCHEDULES TWO MEETINGS
The Shipping Coordinating Committee, sponsored by the Department of State, will conduct two meetings in Washington, DC.
The first meeting, on February 25, is to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the IMO Subcommittee on Flag State Implementation. Topics on the agenda include maritime security, seafarer’s working hours, PSC reporting procedures, and investigation of marine casualties.
The second meeting, on March 16, is to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the IMO Subcommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety. Topics on the agenda include large passenger ship safety, the Intact Stability Code, the Offshore Supply Vessel Guidelines, and harmonization of damage stability provisions.
The Shipping Coordinating Committee, sponsored by the Department of State, will conduct two meetings in Washington, DC.
The first meeting, on February 25, is to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the IMO Subcommittee on Flag State Implementation. Topics on the agenda include maritime security, seafarer’s working hours, PSC reporting procedures, and investigation of marine casualties.
The second meeting, on March 16, is to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the IMO Subcommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety. Topics on the agenda include large passenger ship safety, the Intact Stability Code, the Offshore Supply Vessel Guidelines, and harmonization of damage stability provisions.
18 December 2003
Boy, truer words was never spoke. Or wrote.
After almost 20 years in the government, another 10 on the receiving end of government ministrations before that, I've well and truly had enough of 'stovepiping'.
[Deputy Secretary of Commerce] Bodman told the gathering, "I will tell you, it is very hard for this government to have a vision on anything. We are totally stove-piped, and we live within these compartments. This is not by way of a complaint. This is not by way of an excuse. It is by way of a fact. The emphasis, duh, is mine.
After almost 20 years in the government, another 10 on the receiving end of government ministrations before that, I've well and truly had enough of 'stovepiping'.
[Deputy Secretary of Commerce] Bodman told the gathering, "I will tell you, it is very hard for this government to have a vision on anything. We are totally stove-piped, and we live within these compartments. This is not by way of a complaint. This is not by way of an excuse. It is by way of a fact. The emphasis, duh, is mine.
19 February 2003
From Maritimetoday.com:
MERPAC to Meet in D.C.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC), sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, will conduct a meeting in Washington, DC on March 4, 2003. The meeting may also be attended by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Coast Guard's proposed national security regulations for merchant vessel personnel. 68 Fed. Reg. 806
In other words, notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register!
MERPAC to Meet in D.C.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC), sponsored by the U.S. Coast Guard, will conduct a meeting in Washington, DC on March 4, 2003. The meeting may also be attended by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Coast Guard's proposed national security regulations for merchant vessel personnel. 68 Fed. Reg. 806
In other words, notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register!
18 February 2003
From maritimetoday.com:
IMO Releases Safety of Navigation Circular
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 2/18/03 at 10:24:AM
The IMO released Safety of Navigation Circular 229 providing information regarding submarine pipeline operations in the Singapore Strait-Phillip Channel. Mariners are urged to exercise caution when in this area.
To the astonishment of every five year old, IMO professes an interest in maritime safety. [snicker] I'd call 'em retromingent pithecoids, but that's a bit too polite.
IMO Releases Safety of Navigation Circular
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 2/18/03 at 10:24:AM
The IMO released Safety of Navigation Circular 229 providing information regarding submarine pipeline operations in the Singapore Strait-Phillip Channel. Mariners are urged to exercise caution when in this area.
To the astonishment of every five year old, IMO professes an interest in maritime safety. [snicker] I'd call 'em retromingent pithecoids, but that's a bit too polite.
24 September 2002
http://www.trafficworld.com/news/headlines/water.html
Traffic World--September 23, 2002
War Planning; If there's a mobilization, defense planners will find the U.S. merchant marine both better and worse
BYLINE: BY CHRIS DUPIN
An army marches on its stomach, Napoleon said. Two centuries later much has changed about war, but the need for logistical support - including sealift - has not.
During the Persian Gulf war, aircraft carried soldiers to the front, but 85 to 95 percent of supplies arrived by ship. "We built a city of a half-million people over there," said John Graykowski, an attorney with Dyer and Ellis in Washington, D.C., who was assistant and acting maritime administrator from 1994 to 2000. "Everything you need from movie theaters to toilet paper, consumer goods and war-fighting stuff had to get to the Middle East. The only way you are going to get it there is the way American society gets it and that is with a ship."
With President Bush seeking congressional authorization for possible military action against Iraq, it's beginning to look as if the nation's sealift capacity may face a major mobilization. If that happens, defense planners will find an altered merchant marine - one that in some ways is in better shape than the one used in the 1990-1991 Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, but that in other ways is worse.
The U.S.-flag merchant marine continues to decline and is a shell of its former self. The number of large U.S.-flag ships has fallen from about 2,500 at the end of World War II to 239 at the beginning of the current fiscal year, according to Robert Kesteloot, a Reston, Va., consultant and former director of strategic sealift for the chief of naval operations.
Those ships include 47 vessels covered by the Maritime Security Program, which provides $2.1 million annual subsidies to U.S.-flag ships operated in international trade. Much of the rest of the U.S.-flag fleet consists of tankers or bulk carriers or container vessels in the domestic trades, which the Jones Act protects from foreign competition.
Most of the U.S.-flag ships in MSP are operated by U.S.-based intermediaries for foreign owners, including Denmark's A.P. Moller Group, Singapore's Neptune Orient Lines, Canada's CP Ships and the Anglo-Dutch combine P&O Nedlloyd. Subsidized ships must be owned by "Section 2" companies owned by U.S. citizens.
Albert J. Herberger, a former maritime administrator and deputy commander in chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, said the Section 2 arrangement provides a level of protection. "We have no reason to believe the Danes or the Singaporeans would ever break those contracts, but we had to set up these firewalls," he said, "I don't have any tinges that they would not support us and our requirements," agreed Gen. Edward Honor, the retired director of logistics for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and president of the National Defense Transportation Association for the past 13 years.
Still, the arrangement has provoked criticism that MSP subsidies eventually could go to an intermediary company working for a shipping company based in a nation whose interests aren't aligned with those of the United States.
If there is a war, the first ships to deliver cargo likely will be those in the Maritime Prepositioning Fleet - 37 ships that are preloaded with arms and other materiel for the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force. These ships are kept fully crewed and ready to sail at a moment's notice from strategic locations such as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, in Mediterranean ports and in Guam.
After the prepositioned ships are dispatched, the next source of cargo sealift available to defense planners are the eight Fast Sealift ships and 11 so-called "large medium speed roll-on/roll-off vessels "or LMSRs. The Fast Sealift ships, which can travel at 30 knots, are roll-on/roll-off vessels that were built in the 1970s by Sea-Land Service as container ships.
Rear Adm. David L. Brewer III, commander of the Military Sealift Command, said the 20 LMSRs built after the Persian Gulf war - some are used as prepositioning ships - are among the most significant improvements to the nation's sealift capacity in the past decade. They are enormous ships, with 315,000 to 394,000 square feet of capacity.
"If you want to haul a lot of stuff from one deepwater port to another, you are in pretty good shape," Kesteloot said. "But the LMSRs are much too big. It's a lot of eggs in one basket. There is not much of a threat out there in terms of submarine warfare, but China is coming up with submarines, Iran has a few. Who knows when that picture is going to shift? And then there is the problem of what are you going to do when you go into smaller ports."
In addition, the government would have access to 76 ships in the Ready Reserve Fleet. James E. Caponiti, the Maritime Administration's associate administrator for national security, notes that during Desert Storm, Marad activated 79 vessels from the Ready Reserve Fleet. Because of problems with activating some of those ships, the government created a program to keep skeleton crews on vessels so that they could be activated quickly in the event of a national emergency - in four, five, 10 or 20 days.
The program isn't cheap - it cost $251 million in the current fiscal year. But Caponiti said spot checks have shown that RRF ships have been able to get under way on schedule nearly 100 percent of the time during small-scale deployments for military actions in Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia and humanitarian missions such as in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.
During the Desert Storm mobilization, the Ready Reserve Fleet was concentrated at only a few locations, such as the James River in Virginia. Now the RRF's 76 ships are scattered among 20 ports. The RRF fleet also is more diverse than it was during Desert Storm when it consisted primarily of breakbulk ships. The fleet now comprises 17 breakbulk ships, 10 crane ships, 31 roll-on/roll-off vessels, four barge carriers, three heavylift ships, nine tankers and two school ships from merchant marine academies that can be used as troop carriers.
The RRF ships designed for deployment in four days have full-time port crews of 10 persons; the five-day ships have nine crew members. By keeping skeleton crews on the vessels, Aponiti also notes that Marad is helping solve one of the most intractable problems of maritime planners: the dwindling size of the pool of civilian merchant mariners.
The problem is worsened by the shrinking U.S.-flag fleet and the new international convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which requires seamen to be certified to work on ships - a time-consuming and costly requirement that few retired seafarers are likely to want to meet. Retired merchant mariners, some from World War II, were an important part of the work force during the Persian Gulf war.
A final component of the nation's military sealift capacity is the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program. There are 116 ships enrolled in the VISA program, in which shipowners agree to make a portion of their intermodal transportation capacity - not only ships, but containers, truck fleets, railcars and information systems - available to the military. In return, VISA participants get preference for military cargo. VISA participation also is required for the 47 ships in the U.S.-flag subsidy program. Those ships provide 70 percent of the sealift capacity of the VISA program.
Before activating the VISA program, the government first seeks to move cargo on ships or space chartered from the commercial market, with U.S.-flag ships getting first crack.
During Operation Desert Shield, the Military Sealift Command chartered space from operators of both U.S.- and foreign-flag ships. Few problems were reported, although Carl Seiberlich, former director of military programs for American President Lines, said the owner of a German feeder ship refused to let one of its vessels sail into the Persian Gulf. With no other way to get critical air control equipment to the Air Force days before the United States started shelling Iraq, APL used one of its mainline vessels to deliver the units.
Adm. James Perkins, commander of the Military Sealift Command from 1997 to 1999, said there were several other incidents where foreign crews refused to sail into dangerous waters. "They were just a bunch of guys who did not want to get shot," he said. "But today there is a different calculus. It is not difficult to postulate a situation where the crews might be sympathizers and might try to take a ship over and do something bad with it."
With the increased concern about terrorism, Brewer said the MSC is vetting crew members on both foreign-flag ships and U.S.-flag vessels.
Without knowing how much sealift is needed or whether companies will volunteer tonnage, Caponiti says it is impossible to know if the VISA program will have to be activated. Under the program, the government can demand that carriers supply up to half of their capacity and 100 percent of the capacity on their subsidized ships. It's more likely, though, that carriers would work cooperatively to help the military meet its needs.
What will those needs be? There's considerable debate. Kesteloot, who has been a leading advocate for the need for improved sealift capabilities, said the recent fighting in Afghanistan has caused him to take a second look at some of his assumptions about the need for sealift.
"Our whole philosophy of fighting has changed," he said. "We had very heavy forces (in previous wars) and the Marines, harking back to the days when they were stranded out at Guadalcanal and places like that, have always insisted on 30 days of supplies ready when they go in. I don't think we are going to put nearly as many troops on the ground. Nor are we going to go over with all the tanks that we took over the last time."
That's provocative stuff to others who follow the issue. Brewer points out that Afghanistan was a very different situation than the Persian Gulf war, because it was a landlocked country and a much smaller military force was deployed. And Perkins noted that cargo can be moved by sea for perhaps one-tenth the cost of airlift. "As a taxpayer, I'd like to see more of it," he said.
Traffic World--September 23, 2002
War Planning; If there's a mobilization, defense planners will find the U.S. merchant marine both better and worse
BYLINE: BY CHRIS DUPIN
An army marches on its stomach, Napoleon said. Two centuries later much has changed about war, but the need for logistical support - including sealift - has not.
During the Persian Gulf war, aircraft carried soldiers to the front, but 85 to 95 percent of supplies arrived by ship. "We built a city of a half-million people over there," said John Graykowski, an attorney with Dyer and Ellis in Washington, D.C., who was assistant and acting maritime administrator from 1994 to 2000. "Everything you need from movie theaters to toilet paper, consumer goods and war-fighting stuff had to get to the Middle East. The only way you are going to get it there is the way American society gets it and that is with a ship."
With President Bush seeking congressional authorization for possible military action against Iraq, it's beginning to look as if the nation's sealift capacity may face a major mobilization. If that happens, defense planners will find an altered merchant marine - one that in some ways is in better shape than the one used in the 1990-1991 Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, but that in other ways is worse.
The U.S.-flag merchant marine continues to decline and is a shell of its former self. The number of large U.S.-flag ships has fallen from about 2,500 at the end of World War II to 239 at the beginning of the current fiscal year, according to Robert Kesteloot, a Reston, Va., consultant and former director of strategic sealift for the chief of naval operations.
Those ships include 47 vessels covered by the Maritime Security Program, which provides $2.1 million annual subsidies to U.S.-flag ships operated in international trade. Much of the rest of the U.S.-flag fleet consists of tankers or bulk carriers or container vessels in the domestic trades, which the Jones Act protects from foreign competition.
Most of the U.S.-flag ships in MSP are operated by U.S.-based intermediaries for foreign owners, including Denmark's A.P. Moller Group, Singapore's Neptune Orient Lines, Canada's CP Ships and the Anglo-Dutch combine P&O Nedlloyd. Subsidized ships must be owned by "Section 2" companies owned by U.S. citizens.
Albert J. Herberger, a former maritime administrator and deputy commander in chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, said the Section 2 arrangement provides a level of protection. "We have no reason to believe the Danes or the Singaporeans would ever break those contracts, but we had to set up these firewalls," he said, "I don't have any tinges that they would not support us and our requirements," agreed Gen. Edward Honor, the retired director of logistics for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and president of the National Defense Transportation Association for the past 13 years.
Still, the arrangement has provoked criticism that MSP subsidies eventually could go to an intermediary company working for a shipping company based in a nation whose interests aren't aligned with those of the United States.
If there is a war, the first ships to deliver cargo likely will be those in the Maritime Prepositioning Fleet - 37 ships that are preloaded with arms and other materiel for the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force. These ships are kept fully crewed and ready to sail at a moment's notice from strategic locations such as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, in Mediterranean ports and in Guam.
After the prepositioned ships are dispatched, the next source of cargo sealift available to defense planners are the eight Fast Sealift ships and 11 so-called "large medium speed roll-on/roll-off vessels "or LMSRs. The Fast Sealift ships, which can travel at 30 knots, are roll-on/roll-off vessels that were built in the 1970s by Sea-Land Service as container ships.
Rear Adm. David L. Brewer III, commander of the Military Sealift Command, said the 20 LMSRs built after the Persian Gulf war - some are used as prepositioning ships - are among the most significant improvements to the nation's sealift capacity in the past decade. They are enormous ships, with 315,000 to 394,000 square feet of capacity.
"If you want to haul a lot of stuff from one deepwater port to another, you are in pretty good shape," Kesteloot said. "But the LMSRs are much too big. It's a lot of eggs in one basket. There is not much of a threat out there in terms of submarine warfare, but China is coming up with submarines, Iran has a few. Who knows when that picture is going to shift? And then there is the problem of what are you going to do when you go into smaller ports."
In addition, the government would have access to 76 ships in the Ready Reserve Fleet. James E. Caponiti, the Maritime Administration's associate administrator for national security, notes that during Desert Storm, Marad activated 79 vessels from the Ready Reserve Fleet. Because of problems with activating some of those ships, the government created a program to keep skeleton crews on vessels so that they could be activated quickly in the event of a national emergency - in four, five, 10 or 20 days.
The program isn't cheap - it cost $251 million in the current fiscal year. But Caponiti said spot checks have shown that RRF ships have been able to get under way on schedule nearly 100 percent of the time during small-scale deployments for military actions in Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia and humanitarian missions such as in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.
During the Desert Storm mobilization, the Ready Reserve Fleet was concentrated at only a few locations, such as the James River in Virginia. Now the RRF's 76 ships are scattered among 20 ports. The RRF fleet also is more diverse than it was during Desert Storm when it consisted primarily of breakbulk ships. The fleet now comprises 17 breakbulk ships, 10 crane ships, 31 roll-on/roll-off vessels, four barge carriers, three heavylift ships, nine tankers and two school ships from merchant marine academies that can be used as troop carriers.
The RRF ships designed for deployment in four days have full-time port crews of 10 persons; the five-day ships have nine crew members. By keeping skeleton crews on the vessels, Aponiti also notes that Marad is helping solve one of the most intractable problems of maritime planners: the dwindling size of the pool of civilian merchant mariners.
The problem is worsened by the shrinking U.S.-flag fleet and the new international convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which requires seamen to be certified to work on ships - a time-consuming and costly requirement that few retired seafarers are likely to want to meet. Retired merchant mariners, some from World War II, were an important part of the work force during the Persian Gulf war.
A final component of the nation's military sealift capacity is the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program. There are 116 ships enrolled in the VISA program, in which shipowners agree to make a portion of their intermodal transportation capacity - not only ships, but containers, truck fleets, railcars and information systems - available to the military. In return, VISA participants get preference for military cargo. VISA participation also is required for the 47 ships in the U.S.-flag subsidy program. Those ships provide 70 percent of the sealift capacity of the VISA program.
Before activating the VISA program, the government first seeks to move cargo on ships or space chartered from the commercial market, with U.S.-flag ships getting first crack.
During Operation Desert Shield, the Military Sealift Command chartered space from operators of both U.S.- and foreign-flag ships. Few problems were reported, although Carl Seiberlich, former director of military programs for American President Lines, said the owner of a German feeder ship refused to let one of its vessels sail into the Persian Gulf. With no other way to get critical air control equipment to the Air Force days before the United States started shelling Iraq, APL used one of its mainline vessels to deliver the units.
Adm. James Perkins, commander of the Military Sealift Command from 1997 to 1999, said there were several other incidents where foreign crews refused to sail into dangerous waters. "They were just a bunch of guys who did not want to get shot," he said. "But today there is a different calculus. It is not difficult to postulate a situation where the crews might be sympathizers and might try to take a ship over and do something bad with it."
With the increased concern about terrorism, Brewer said the MSC is vetting crew members on both foreign-flag ships and U.S.-flag vessels.
Without knowing how much sealift is needed or whether companies will volunteer tonnage, Caponiti says it is impossible to know if the VISA program will have to be activated. Under the program, the government can demand that carriers supply up to half of their capacity and 100 percent of the capacity on their subsidized ships. It's more likely, though, that carriers would work cooperatively to help the military meet its needs.
What will those needs be? There's considerable debate. Kesteloot, who has been a leading advocate for the need for improved sealift capabilities, said the recent fighting in Afghanistan has caused him to take a second look at some of his assumptions about the need for sealift.
"Our whole philosophy of fighting has changed," he said. "We had very heavy forces (in previous wars) and the Marines, harking back to the days when they were stranded out at Guadalcanal and places like that, have always insisted on 30 days of supplies ready when they go in. I don't think we are going to put nearly as many troops on the ground. Nor are we going to go over with all the tanks that we took over the last time."
That's provocative stuff to others who follow the issue. Brewer points out that Afghanistan was a very different situation than the Persian Gulf war, because it was a landlocked country and a much smaller military force was deployed. And Perkins noted that cargo can be moved by sea for perhaps one-tenth the cost of airlift. "As a taxpayer, I'd like to see more of it," he said.
18 September 2002
05 July 2002
Roger that, Brink Lindsey!
July 4, 2002
WHY WE'LL WIN: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:25 AM
WHY THEY HATE US: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:25 AM
WHY WE FIGHT: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:24 AM
July 4, 2002
WHY WE'LL WIN: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:25 AM
WHY THEY HATE US: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:25 AM
WHY WE FIGHT: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
posted by Brink Lindsey at 10:24 AM
18 June 2002
The $0.2billion adventure in Pascagoula. Note, for the record, that these ships were in trouble well before September 11th:
This article from NYTimes.com
Critics Christen Ship Project as an Off-Course U.S.S. Pork
June 18, 2002 By LESLIE WAYNE
Two years ago, with waving flags and hula dancers swaying,
the government announced an ambitious program to build two
passenger cruise ships - the first in a United States
shipyard since the 1950's - and provided more than $1
billion in loan guarantees to get the program going.
It did not hurt that the ships were to be built in the
Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard where the father of Trent Lott,
the Republican Senate minority leader, once worked. As a
result, Senator Lott became one of the strongest supporters
of the program, which was named Project America.
Today, the project is being derided as an example of
political pork gone wrong. What remains of Project America
is an unfinished hull the size of two football fields and
pieces for a second ship lying around. The hull is not
floatable; it has neither a completed bow or stern; and its
future is in doubt. The price to the government for the
failed project is $187 million - money the government is
trying to recoup by putting the half-finished hull on the
market.
This dismal reality only confirms the worst fears of the
project's critics - and is a far cry from the high hopes of
those who backed it. Critics, who call Project America
corporate welfare, say it shows the dangers lurking behind
the tens of billions in loan guarantees the government has
extended to an array of businesses, among them airlines,
the housing industry and American exporters.
"This has turned into a corporate welfare debacle," said
Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a
Washington research group that promotes free-market
economics. "Congress likes loan guarantees because they do
not show up on the budget and appear to be free to
taxpayers. Yet there are so many instances, like this one,
where the project explodes into the taxpayers' lap."
Who wants to buy a half-finished cruise ship? Not many, it
turns out. Not the Navy, which turned down a proposal from
a Mississippi congressman to run it as a
rest-and-relaxation ship for battle-weary troops. Not
commercial cruise lines still trying to lure passengers to
existing ships after the terrorist attacks last September.
"It's very difficult," said Jean E. McKeever, associate
administrator for shipbuilding at the Maritime
Administration, which is now advertising for buyers.
"That's been shown by the lack of a satisfactory response
to our ads."
For Project America's Congressional backers, Senator Lott
among them, the ships were a way to jump-start the dormant
commercial shipbuilding industry. The ships were being
built by American Classic Voyages and fell into the
government's hands after the company filed for bankruptcy
protection last October.
As an extra dollop of support, Congress had passed
legislation giving American Classic and the two
1,900-passenger ships a monopoly on the Hawaiian cruise
market.
In the critics' corner is Senator John McCain, the Arizona
Republican, who put Project America on his annual "pork"
list. In the meantime, the project's failure is being
investigated by the inspector general's office of the
Department of Transportation and by the General Accounting
Office.
On Senator McCain's side is the Bush administration, which
has tried to eliminate the shipbuilding loan guarantee
program - only to be thwarted by Congress. This year, for
instance, the administration is asking that the program be
given no funds, while a letter is circulating in the Senate
seeking $50 million for it. The program is run by the
Maritime Administration.
Between those two points of view lies a seven-story hull
sitting under the hot Southern sun, hardly a tantalizing
prospect for anyone.
That includes the Navy. The Mississippi Democrat whose
Congressional district includes the Pascagoula shipyard,
Representative Gene Taylor, led an all-out push this year
for the Navy to buy the hull. He even put language into the
military appropriations bill encouraging the Navy to do so.
Mr. Taylor is a senior member of the House Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. Taylor's idea was to turn the hull into a floating
military barracks. A cruise ship, the argument went, would
give sailors more space and better facilities than many of
the barracks where they currently live overseas and would
provide the Navy with a quick escape route if anti-American
sentiment should build on foreign shores.
In addition, after noting that the Navy had leased the
Cunard Princess to provide a floating respite for gulf war
troops, Mr. Taylor thought a Navy-owned cruise ship could
do the same.
What tired soldier would not want to enjoy what the Project
America ship would offer - one of 950 staterooms, most with
outside balconies; a spa and swimming pool; a 590-seat
cabaret lounge; an 840-seat theater; a four-story atrium;
and, according to the ship's promotional literature, a
"uniquely Hawaiian outdoor performance stage."
"It would be similar to a college dorm," Mr. Taylor said.
"In our all-volunteer military, you would have housing with
a movie theater, health care and a swimming pool. It would
be a floating barracks. It also provides protection against
any security threat. Heck, if there are any problems, you
can take it beyond the horizon and your troops are safe."
But the Navy declined, saying it needed destroyers and
other warships instead.
While Mr. Taylor's proposal might seem lighthearted, his
intention is anything but. He wants to keep workers
employed at the Pascagoula yard, formally known as the
Ingalls Shipyard, and encourage someone - anyone - to
finish the ship.
"This is America," Mr. Taylor said. "People wait for
something to go on sale before they buy. My hunch is a
cruise ship company or third-party investor is waiting for
the price to get right before buying and finishing it.
Taxpayers would be better off if the ships were finished
and we got as good a price as possible."
Senator Lott did not respond to requests for comment.
The
Maritime Administration's loan program is intended to
support domestic shipyards by guaranteeing the debt issued
to finance commercial ship construction. Last year, the
agency guaranteed $362 million; in 2000, $885 million.
When a project fails - as happened after American Classic's
bankruptcy filing - the government steps in to pay off the
debtholders.
In this case, the $187 million went to institutional
investors who had bought Project America debt, which became
worthless after the American Classic bankruptcy. The
largest shareholder and chairman of American Classic is Sam
Zell, the Chicago financier who made a fortune as a
financial turnaround artist.
Mr. Zell cannot complete the ship and, with the Navy out of
the picture, it is hard to see who would buy the hull and
pay the millions needed to turn it into the passenger ship
it was intended to be. For more than 50 years, all cruise
ships have been made in Europe or the Far East, where
construction costs are lower and shipyards have pioneered
the latest in cruise ship technology. Moreover, the cruise
ship industry, while rebounding after Sept. 11, is still
looking more to fill existing vessels than to buy new ones.
"You can't even float the hull out at this point," said
Joseph Hovorka, a maritime analyst with Raymond James. "I
don't know what anyone would do with it at this point. You
wouldn't see a major ship company like Carnival or Royal
Caribbean coming in to buy it. There's not a roster of
companies out there wanting to build a cruise ship,
certainly to take on a project of this size."
Even before Sept. 11, Project America had run into trouble.
It had fallen behind schedule and was far over budget. As a
result, Northrop Grumman, which owns the shipyard, took a
$60 million write-off from it and American Classic lost
$100 million. The yard itself will continue to make and
repair Navy vessels.
"The project was behind schedule and millions in the hole,"
said John Graykowski, former administrator of the
government's shipbuilding program. "The terrorists' attack
masked this reality and perhaps allowed the emperor to
maintain his modesty. "
Still, the impact of Sept. 11 was stunning. David Heller, a
lawyer for American Classic, said, "You cannot imagine the
body blow that 9/11 brought to the whole viability of the
project."
For the moment, Northrop Grumman has assigned 350 workers
to make the ship floatable while the government looks for a
buyer.
At its worst, the Project America hull could be chopped up
for scrap. But, with the keel laid, much interior work
done, and a large part already built, many feel it would be
a shame to reduce it to rubble.
For that reason, Mr. Taylor, the Mississippi congressman,
remains optimistic. "It would be a mistake to drag it down
to Mexico and scrap it," he said. "That would be the worst
of all worlds. I do think that, with time, someone will see
its value and will make a cruise ship out of it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/18/business/18SHIP.html?ex=1025415973&ei=1&en=eec677796f266538
This article from NYTimes.com
Critics Christen Ship Project as an Off-Course U.S.S. Pork
June 18, 2002 By LESLIE WAYNE
Two years ago, with waving flags and hula dancers swaying,
the government announced an ambitious program to build two
passenger cruise ships - the first in a United States
shipyard since the 1950's - and provided more than $1
billion in loan guarantees to get the program going.
It did not hurt that the ships were to be built in the
Pascagoula, Miss., shipyard where the father of Trent Lott,
the Republican Senate minority leader, once worked. As a
result, Senator Lott became one of the strongest supporters
of the program, which was named Project America.
Today, the project is being derided as an example of
political pork gone wrong. What remains of Project America
is an unfinished hull the size of two football fields and
pieces for a second ship lying around. The hull is not
floatable; it has neither a completed bow or stern; and its
future is in doubt. The price to the government for the
failed project is $187 million - money the government is
trying to recoup by putting the half-finished hull on the
market.
This dismal reality only confirms the worst fears of the
project's critics - and is a far cry from the high hopes of
those who backed it. Critics, who call Project America
corporate welfare, say it shows the dangers lurking behind
the tens of billions in loan guarantees the government has
extended to an array of businesses, among them airlines,
the housing industry and American exporters.
"This has turned into a corporate welfare debacle," said
Stephen Moore, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a
Washington research group that promotes free-market
economics. "Congress likes loan guarantees because they do
not show up on the budget and appear to be free to
taxpayers. Yet there are so many instances, like this one,
where the project explodes into the taxpayers' lap."
Who wants to buy a half-finished cruise ship? Not many, it
turns out. Not the Navy, which turned down a proposal from
a Mississippi congressman to run it as a
rest-and-relaxation ship for battle-weary troops. Not
commercial cruise lines still trying to lure passengers to
existing ships after the terrorist attacks last September.
"It's very difficult," said Jean E. McKeever, associate
administrator for shipbuilding at the Maritime
Administration, which is now advertising for buyers.
"That's been shown by the lack of a satisfactory response
to our ads."
For Project America's Congressional backers, Senator Lott
among them, the ships were a way to jump-start the dormant
commercial shipbuilding industry. The ships were being
built by American Classic Voyages and fell into the
government's hands after the company filed for bankruptcy
protection last October.
As an extra dollop of support, Congress had passed
legislation giving American Classic and the two
1,900-passenger ships a monopoly on the Hawaiian cruise
market.
In the critics' corner is Senator John McCain, the Arizona
Republican, who put Project America on his annual "pork"
list. In the meantime, the project's failure is being
investigated by the inspector general's office of the
Department of Transportation and by the General Accounting
Office.
On Senator McCain's side is the Bush administration, which
has tried to eliminate the shipbuilding loan guarantee
program - only to be thwarted by Congress. This year, for
instance, the administration is asking that the program be
given no funds, while a letter is circulating in the Senate
seeking $50 million for it. The program is run by the
Maritime Administration.
Between those two points of view lies a seven-story hull
sitting under the hot Southern sun, hardly a tantalizing
prospect for anyone.
That includes the Navy. The Mississippi Democrat whose
Congressional district includes the Pascagoula shipyard,
Representative Gene Taylor, led an all-out push this year
for the Navy to buy the hull. He even put language into the
military appropriations bill encouraging the Navy to do so.
Mr. Taylor is a senior member of the House Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. Taylor's idea was to turn the hull into a floating
military barracks. A cruise ship, the argument went, would
give sailors more space and better facilities than many of
the barracks where they currently live overseas and would
provide the Navy with a quick escape route if anti-American
sentiment should build on foreign shores.
In addition, after noting that the Navy had leased the
Cunard Princess to provide a floating respite for gulf war
troops, Mr. Taylor thought a Navy-owned cruise ship could
do the same.
What tired soldier would not want to enjoy what the Project
America ship would offer - one of 950 staterooms, most with
outside balconies; a spa and swimming pool; a 590-seat
cabaret lounge; an 840-seat theater; a four-story atrium;
and, according to the ship's promotional literature, a
"uniquely Hawaiian outdoor performance stage."
"It would be similar to a college dorm," Mr. Taylor said.
"In our all-volunteer military, you would have housing with
a movie theater, health care and a swimming pool. It would
be a floating barracks. It also provides protection against
any security threat. Heck, if there are any problems, you
can take it beyond the horizon and your troops are safe."
But the Navy declined, saying it needed destroyers and
other warships instead.
While Mr. Taylor's proposal might seem lighthearted, his
intention is anything but. He wants to keep workers
employed at the Pascagoula yard, formally known as the
Ingalls Shipyard, and encourage someone - anyone - to
finish the ship.
"This is America," Mr. Taylor said. "People wait for
something to go on sale before they buy. My hunch is a
cruise ship company or third-party investor is waiting for
the price to get right before buying and finishing it.
Taxpayers would be better off if the ships were finished
and we got as good a price as possible."
Senator Lott did not respond to requests for comment.
The
Maritime Administration's loan program is intended to
support domestic shipyards by guaranteeing the debt issued
to finance commercial ship construction. Last year, the
agency guaranteed $362 million; in 2000, $885 million.
When a project fails - as happened after American Classic's
bankruptcy filing - the government steps in to pay off the
debtholders.
In this case, the $187 million went to institutional
investors who had bought Project America debt, which became
worthless after the American Classic bankruptcy. The
largest shareholder and chairman of American Classic is Sam
Zell, the Chicago financier who made a fortune as a
financial turnaround artist.
Mr. Zell cannot complete the ship and, with the Navy out of
the picture, it is hard to see who would buy the hull and
pay the millions needed to turn it into the passenger ship
it was intended to be. For more than 50 years, all cruise
ships have been made in Europe or the Far East, where
construction costs are lower and shipyards have pioneered
the latest in cruise ship technology. Moreover, the cruise
ship industry, while rebounding after Sept. 11, is still
looking more to fill existing vessels than to buy new ones.
"You can't even float the hull out at this point," said
Joseph Hovorka, a maritime analyst with Raymond James. "I
don't know what anyone would do with it at this point. You
wouldn't see a major ship company like Carnival or Royal
Caribbean coming in to buy it. There's not a roster of
companies out there wanting to build a cruise ship,
certainly to take on a project of this size."
Even before Sept. 11, Project America had run into trouble.
It had fallen behind schedule and was far over budget. As a
result, Northrop Grumman, which owns the shipyard, took a
$60 million write-off from it and American Classic lost
$100 million. The yard itself will continue to make and
repair Navy vessels.
"The project was behind schedule and millions in the hole,"
said John Graykowski, former administrator of the
government's shipbuilding program. "The terrorists' attack
masked this reality and perhaps allowed the emperor to
maintain his modesty. "
Still, the impact of Sept. 11 was stunning. David Heller, a
lawyer for American Classic, said, "You cannot imagine the
body blow that 9/11 brought to the whole viability of the
project."
For the moment, Northrop Grumman has assigned 350 workers
to make the ship floatable while the government looks for a
buyer.
At its worst, the Project America hull could be chopped up
for scrap. But, with the keel laid, much interior work
done, and a large part already built, many feel it would be
a shame to reduce it to rubble.
For that reason, Mr. Taylor, the Mississippi congressman,
remains optimistic. "It would be a mistake to drag it down
to Mexico and scrap it," he said. "That would be the worst
of all worlds. I do think that, with time, someone will see
its value and will make a cruise ship out of it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/18/business/18SHIP.html?ex=1025415973&ei=1&en=eec677796f266538
05 June 2002
As an industry that leaves our loved ones at home often and for long periods of time, you might consider this from National Review Online. The link is: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_06_02_corner-archive.asp#85144824
NOT SO SAFE [Dave Kopel]
Mary Carpenter is the grandmother of two children who were murdered by an insane man with a pitchfork in Merced, California. In a letter to a state legislature considering a trigger-lock mandate, Mrs. Carpenter blames California's trigger-lock law for her grandchildren's death. The killer attacked while the eldest child in the family, a 14-year-old girl, was babysitting the younger three. Because the family's guns were locked in a safe, in accordance with California law, the teenager, who was trained with firearms and a very good shot, was unable to retrieve a gun to protect her siblings. As new research by John Lott details, so-called "safe storage" laws do in fact increase feelings of safety -- for violent criminals; such laws lead to more murder, rape, robbery, and assault.
Posted 11:54 AM | [Link]
NOT SO SAFE [Dave Kopel]
Mary Carpenter is the grandmother of two children who were murdered by an insane man with a pitchfork in Merced, California. In a letter to a state legislature considering a trigger-lock mandate, Mrs. Carpenter blames California's trigger-lock law for her grandchildren's death. The killer attacked while the eldest child in the family, a 14-year-old girl, was babysitting the younger three. Because the family's guns were locked in a safe, in accordance with California law, the teenager, who was trained with firearms and a very good shot, was unable to retrieve a gun to protect her siblings. As new research by John Lott details, so-called "safe storage" laws do in fact increase feelings of safety -- for violent criminals; such laws lead to more murder, rape, robbery, and assault.
Posted 11:54 AM | [Link]
08 May 2002
At the recent Mariner Recruitment & Retention (MRR) conference, there was concern about personal liability created by 'signing off' a training record for STCW purposes.
So, here's the question: What is your understanding of this issue, i.e., what is the legal liability or potential liability for an officer who signs off a mariner later involved in an accident?
I'm collecting responses: rgmcf@yahoo.com
So, here's the question: What is your understanding of this issue, i.e., what is the legal liability or potential liability for an officer who signs off a mariner later involved in an accident?
I'm collecting responses: rgmcf@yahoo.com
26 April 2002
Courtesy of Slate e-magazine:
http://slate.msn.com/
How Bob Woodward made Norman Mineta a false hero.
by Joshua Green
Posted Monday, April 1, 2002, at 4:02 PM PT
Among the public officials who gained folk-hero status on Sept. 11, only Rudolph Giuliani outshines Norman Mineta, who is credited with making the snap decision to ground all airborne planes shortly after the Pentagon attack. The transportation secretary was canonized in the opening paragraphs of Bob Woodward and Dan Balz's six-part Washington Post epic, "10 Days in September":
Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order—there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary. "[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those goddamn planes down."
Mineta's courageous performance has been widely praised, not least by Mineta himself in a Sept. 20 appearance before Congress, and again on 60 Minutes II a month later. Here's his congressional testimony:
I immediately called the FAA, told them to bring all the airplanes down right now. All that we have learned since that fateful morning leaves me convinced that this unusual command or order was the right thing to do.
For Mineta, the genuflection this tale has engendered has been a welcome distraction from less mythic performances, such as his department's problems getting the new airport security agency off the ground. Long considered a competent if unremarkable backbencher, Mineta has refashioned himself as a quick-thinking decision-maker with flawless instincts in an emergency.
He may be that, but he isn't the hero Woodward and Balz make him out to be. According to insiders, that honor belongs to Monte Belger, at the time the No. 2 official at the FAA. A precise, diligent career bureaucrat known among colleagues as "the Forrest Gump of the FAA," Belger was on a phone bridge with controllers at the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon, Va., and ordered flights grounded 15 minutes before Mineta was even notified of the attacks. So, when the secretary issued his blunt order—"Monte, bring all the planes down!"—Monte had already done so.
FAA officials and beat reporters have known this for months. "Any clued-in transportation reporter knows what went on that day," says one. But Mineta apparently does not. After he gave his congressional testimony, FAA officials, including Belger, who is a consummate team player, kept quiet in deference to their boss. Though beat reporters knew the truth as long ago as November, none came forward for fear of being frozen out.
Until last Tuesday, when, at the end of a speech before the Aero Club of Washington, D.C., the Washington Post's veteran transportation reporter Don Phillips let the cat out of the bag. Phillips told his audience he felt it necessary to make a "historical correction," although FAA officials had begged him to maintain the fiction. Phillips proposed, charitably, that Mineta's order was a simple misunderstanding; that the secretary was unaware that "[f]or at least 15 minutes before Mineta's conversation with the FAA, controllers were bringing the planes down ... at the nearest airport." Phillips continued:
I'm told by very high sources that it happened this way: First, the decision was made on a regional basis by some gutsy local FAA officials, and the FAA command center and headquarters officials agreed that it should be spread to the whole country. First, [the FAA] acted. Then they sought permission. A top FAA official ... then called Mineta, finding him in a bunker with the vice president and other officials. He explained the plan, and Mineta agreed. ...
Then there was a pause in the conversation. You know what many of us do when there is a pause in the conversation. We try to fill the dead time. The FAA official, unfortunately said something like, "Of course we could have let them go on to their destinations, or ..." Big mistake. Norm heard that throwaway line as saying the FAA was still considering letting them go on to destination. He then fired off his now-famous order.
All this raises the question of why, if every reporter on the transportation beat knew the truth about Mineta's command, Woodward and Balz got it wrong. It's plausible that Mineta really didn't know the truth about Sept. 11—that due to his deputies' protectiveness, the secretary has been unwittingly repeating an erroneous version of events.
But that doesn't excuse Woodward and Balz. Unlike so many other juicy Woodward anecdotes, this one was easily verifiable, particularly since their Post colleague, Phillips, had ferreted out the truth. "I have no reason to doubt that the more complicated version that [Phillips] explains is probably the accurate one," Balz says.
Woodward isn't nearly as ready to concede. "This is the first I've heard of it," he told me, adding that he checked his version of the story with Mineta's staff. "If I'd known of that information—and it was correct—I probably would have included [the anecdote]. But no correction is necessary. What we wrote is not inaccurate." Not inaccurate, perhaps—but not exactly accurate either.
http://slate.msn.com/
How Bob Woodward made Norman Mineta a false hero.
by Joshua Green
Posted Monday, April 1, 2002, at 4:02 PM PT
Among the public officials who gained folk-hero status on Sept. 11, only Rudolph Giuliani outshines Norman Mineta, who is credited with making the snap decision to ground all airborne planes shortly after the Pentagon attack. The transportation secretary was canonized in the opening paragraphs of Bob Woodward and Dan Balz's six-part Washington Post epic, "10 Days in September":
Mineta shouted into the phone to Monte Belger at the FAA: "Monte, bring all the planes down." It was an unprecedented order—there were 4,546 airplanes in the air at the time. Belger, the FAA's acting deputy administrator, amended Mineta's directive to take into account the authority vested in airline pilots. "We're bringing them down per pilot discretion," Belger told the secretary. "[Expletive] pilot discretion," Mineta yelled back. "Get those goddamn planes down."
Mineta's courageous performance has been widely praised, not least by Mineta himself in a Sept. 20 appearance before Congress, and again on 60 Minutes II a month later. Here's his congressional testimony:
I immediately called the FAA, told them to bring all the airplanes down right now. All that we have learned since that fateful morning leaves me convinced that this unusual command or order was the right thing to do.
For Mineta, the genuflection this tale has engendered has been a welcome distraction from less mythic performances, such as his department's problems getting the new airport security agency off the ground. Long considered a competent if unremarkable backbencher, Mineta has refashioned himself as a quick-thinking decision-maker with flawless instincts in an emergency.
He may be that, but he isn't the hero Woodward and Balz make him out to be. According to insiders, that honor belongs to Monte Belger, at the time the No. 2 official at the FAA. A precise, diligent career bureaucrat known among colleagues as "the Forrest Gump of the FAA," Belger was on a phone bridge with controllers at the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon, Va., and ordered flights grounded 15 minutes before Mineta was even notified of the attacks. So, when the secretary issued his blunt order—"Monte, bring all the planes down!"—Monte had already done so.
FAA officials and beat reporters have known this for months. "Any clued-in transportation reporter knows what went on that day," says one. But Mineta apparently does not. After he gave his congressional testimony, FAA officials, including Belger, who is a consummate team player, kept quiet in deference to their boss. Though beat reporters knew the truth as long ago as November, none came forward for fear of being frozen out.
Until last Tuesday, when, at the end of a speech before the Aero Club of Washington, D.C., the Washington Post's veteran transportation reporter Don Phillips let the cat out of the bag. Phillips told his audience he felt it necessary to make a "historical correction," although FAA officials had begged him to maintain the fiction. Phillips proposed, charitably, that Mineta's order was a simple misunderstanding; that the secretary was unaware that "[f]or at least 15 minutes before Mineta's conversation with the FAA, controllers were bringing the planes down ... at the nearest airport." Phillips continued:
I'm told by very high sources that it happened this way: First, the decision was made on a regional basis by some gutsy local FAA officials, and the FAA command center and headquarters officials agreed that it should be spread to the whole country. First, [the FAA] acted. Then they sought permission. A top FAA official ... then called Mineta, finding him in a bunker with the vice president and other officials. He explained the plan, and Mineta agreed. ...
Then there was a pause in the conversation. You know what many of us do when there is a pause in the conversation. We try to fill the dead time. The FAA official, unfortunately said something like, "Of course we could have let them go on to their destinations, or ..." Big mistake. Norm heard that throwaway line as saying the FAA was still considering letting them go on to destination. He then fired off his now-famous order.
All this raises the question of why, if every reporter on the transportation beat knew the truth about Mineta's command, Woodward and Balz got it wrong. It's plausible that Mineta really didn't know the truth about Sept. 11—that due to his deputies' protectiveness, the secretary has been unwittingly repeating an erroneous version of events.
But that doesn't excuse Woodward and Balz. Unlike so many other juicy Woodward anecdotes, this one was easily verifiable, particularly since their Post colleague, Phillips, had ferreted out the truth. "I have no reason to doubt that the more complicated version that [Phillips] explains is probably the accurate one," Balz says.
Woodward isn't nearly as ready to concede. "This is the first I've heard of it," he told me, adding that he checked his version of the story with Mineta's staff. "If I'd known of that information—and it was correct—I probably would have included [the anecdote]. But no correction is necessary. What we wrote is not inaccurate." Not inaccurate, perhaps—but not exactly accurate either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)