An EFFECTIVE Democratic party would demand NATIONALIZATION of the Ports.

[iconoclastNYC]

These belong to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not a private company, let alone a company owned by autocratic middle eastern government with ties to 9/11 and OBL.

THE FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATS TO EXPLOIT THIS STORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP (DLC) IS A FAILURE.

[applegrove]

1. So that's the wedge? Dems have to do something reactionary to

what the repukes do? Good governance works. Just make sure if the ports are in private hands like they have been for years... and not to a government that helps the people you are at war with. Unless you want them to be able to help your enemies.

[Cocoa]

2. interesting idea

do you have any information on nationalization of the ports? What are the implications, etc.

Are there any models or proposals for doing this?

[iconoclastNYC]

4. It's easy.

We nationalized airport security after 9/11. This should have done by now but our government FAILS US.

Democrats will never win playing by the rules.

We have to be bold and set the r'thugs up for a battle they can't win.

CRUSH THEM! CRUSH THEM! CRUSH THEM!

[Cocoa]

17. you mean nationalizing port security, or nationalizing the ports?

do you consider airports to be nationalized now, are you proposing the airport model for ports?

[iconoclastNYC]

25. Who owns an airport?

Best I can tell they are owned and operated by governments.

I think the Port Authority runs LaGaurdia and JFK.

Bush would sell them to Saudi Arabia if it meant that the Carlyle Group would make some money.

[castiron]

10. Well, the UAE did it. There's a model.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. TSA = nationalized Airport Security

TSA In Charge Of Airport Security

NATIONAL REPORT -- Airline passengers experienced the new Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) regulations at 429 airports, for the first time yesterday, which was the deadline for the federal government’s takeover of airport security.

The first step toward a system where better-trained federal employees screen passengers and luggage, the new security measures include computers that will screen passengers for weapons. Additionally, more bags will be subject to sniffing by trained dogs, a more comprehensive screening by both explosive-detection and explosive trace detection devices, manual searches or a combination of those techniques.

“We will work to meet the requirement that each checked bag be screened by explosive detection equipment by the end of this year,” said John Magaw, Under Secretary for Transportation Security, in a statement last month. “Working with a team of consultants, we are looking at a wide variety of innovative approaches using technology, different ways to run the check-in process and procurement strategies that can get us to that goal.”

In addition to the bag screening requirement, passengers will be asked to remove their shoes to check for explosives, according to Magaw, and travelers inspected with handheld wands will have their valuables in front of them.

Although security is tighter, Transportation Department officials said that the changes are not drastic. For the next four months, TSA will use some of the outside contractors who do airport security now, with some exceptions.

It is expected that TSA will be signing contracts with about 60 security companies in the next few days, according to Michael Jackson, Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Current companies will get 30 days notice of termination, but many are requesting to get the same work from the government.

In addition, the government will soon be hiring and training its own employees to do the work. Each screening checkpoint has an airline screening manager on duty, and each airport will have at least one federal security manager, who would manage security for the entire airport. The department has begun looking for 81 permanent federal security managers.

At a news briefing last week, Magaw was asked about the issuance of a “trusted traveler” card, a security change that airlines are requesting for their frequent flyers, which would qualify them for a faster passage through security.

“There is a place for it,” said Magaw, but he said the checked luggage and carry-on baggage of those passengers would still have to screened.

[Cocoa]

18. is there an equivalent of TSA for the ports now?

is there a federal agency responsible for port security?

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Nope

Coast gaurd sets security standards and the company that runs it has to meet standards.

This is why we should nationalize the ports. It should be DHS that runs these ports, federal employees who aren't worried about the bottom line.

[Burried News]

3. There are two other angles at least, that Dems should consider.

This is unfair competition. How is an American Co. to compete against a company that is partly owned by the UAE. Is this a company or a government that bought the port contracts. And let us remember, a country whose income is assured by oil deposits - if it fails to make money will it be allowed to fail - no likely.

Secondly, American workers, American factories and American Farms have suffered from globalization. We are constantly reminded that we are not competative. But then we learn that 95% of the goods shipped in are not inspected in any way. If they were what would the true cost of these goods be? Domestic goods and produce doesn't have to be inspected. Maybe when these kinds of costs are factored in we will learn that American products were not more costly. One has to seriously evaluate the degree to which economic pressures are due to cartels and monopoly practices vs. true economies of scale.

This issue is about much more than security BUT I have yet heard a politician other than Miller of CA try to educate us on these issues.

Globalization requires international shipping and commerce on a vast scale. It creates a security vulnerability - it is up to the companies engaged in it to increase inspection and surveillance AND PAY FOR IT.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. Unfair competition?

Please. This is about the need of the state to protect it's borders.

Pay the british what they were going to get from the arabs and tell them to shut the fuck up.

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Globalization is destroying our economy

And it was forced on Democrats by the DLC.

We are loosing because we went along with the DLC.

The pro-corporate agenda is an anti-american middle class agenda and it's time we face that.

[sandnsea]

38. That's all very important too

In the scheme of things, that's probably more important than the terrorist aspect. We're supposed to have this "free market", yet we keep finding out that we're competing with companies who don't have to provide health care, a living wage, pay to clean up their own pollution, provide shipping lane protections, and now we find out many are even state owned. DPW, the Singapore port company, Citgo, etc. It's absolutely ridiculous and it is time for us to demand an end to it.

[Burried News]

40. Yes, thank you for expressing it better than I did.

[land of the free]

6. nice idea on paper, but

the Dems are a minority. They can't force this to happen. They can whine about it, but they had better be armed with a LOT of details and a good plan before they bloviate.

Hasn't a British company been in charge of this in the past (that's what I thought I heard)? Were the Dems for or against that?

[iconoclastNYC]

11. On this issue we enjoy wide right-wing support

We have to offer a better solution then what the Republicans offer and beat them over the head with it and make them look weak on national security.

The ports would be safest if the Federal government operated them and the State goverments auditeed them. Thats what we need to push for. The Republicans would rue the day they opposed us.

[BuyingThyme]

7. They should demand nationalization and settle for American-owned.

[iconoclastNYC]

12. :)

We won't have to settle.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. The deal is a lease of container terminals, not a sale of the harbor.

So be sure you get that straight before you write your legislation you want the Dems to champion.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Nice sentiment jerk.

Everyone knows that the contracts are for control of the ports including executive of security.

[Cocoa]

19. I didn't know that

maybe you know that (and maybe you don't), but I didn't.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Apparently, those in the know don't know what you are

claiming "everyone knows."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=493956

Also, when you employ the tactic of slinging personal insults, you are not only breaking DU rules but you make your own spurious arguments appear even worse than they are.

An apology would be nice, but I doubt you are secure enough in your own self image for that.

[iconoclastNYC]

34. If you think I violated the rules then click that alert button.

Otherwise step aside.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. I decided to handle it myself. I thought long and hard about

hitting the alert button, due to the personal insult nature of your reply, but before I did, I went and checked out your blog and figured you were basically a natural allie who is maybe a little immature and excitable but not a disruptor or really a bad sort.

Did you happen to read the link I provided?

It has a pretty good explanation of how the ports are run currently, and some of the comments down thread provide useful information. It refutes your explanation of how the ports are run, obviously. And you haven't provided any links to back up your assertions.

Look, I don't like the way this whole ports deal went down, for a number of reasons, but if you can't argue a point based on fact, then it will come back and bite you.

I figured providing information would be more productive in the long run than hitting the alert button.

[upi402]

14. too mant DINO's have infiltrated

our former party.

Dean lost me last weekend. He appeared for Sen. Maria Cantwell's re-election.

[iconoclastNYC]

16. I agree on the DINOS

But we can take it back. We need to storm the bastille. We need to take the party back seat by seat. The conservatives did this and took over the Republican party.

We have to do it. There is no other way.

[upi402]

22. Yep, the Republicans did it in our party too

We may be able to get real Dems back in office eventually.
There is no other way, you're right. Aside from maybe a long, intractable decline that Americans can't deny.
We have little hope without something to counter their media propaganda, IMHO.

[iconoclastNYC]

26. Activists must become to media to thier friends.

We have to direct people to independant non-corporate owned sources of media.

[depakid]

20. Bad idea- a lonshoreman wrote about this today

And I agree with the analysis. Just goes to show that things aren't always the way you think they are.

A very worthwhile read if you're interested in this issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2477087

[iconoclastNYC]

27. I think that post is bullshit.

Some of the strongest unions in the country are government employee unions. I think this would strengthen unions. I doubt DUBAI has unionized workers. Look at thier guest worker program in the country....they import people and give them no rights.

[w4rma]

21. Isn't that what Bush wants? To nationalize the ports.

To sell the ports to the UAE government. This buisness that would be running our ports is not a privately owned buisness. It's owned by the UAE government as a whole.

[iconoclastNYC]

28. Good point! UAE government ownership = good, USA govn't ownership = bad

Makes no sense to me unless you factor in cronyism and $$$ and forwarding the wacky free market fundmetanlist cool-aid the Republican party and the DLC mainline.

[RB TexLa]

23. They should be taken from the counties, states, and or cities that built

them?

[iconoclastNYC]

29. No...they should be run by US government

Be it state, federal, or local.....not by foreign governments with ties to 9/11 and OBL.

[iconoclastNYC]

30. Want to clarify a point

I mean they belong to the people of the united states of america, and probably more properly the people of the state where they are located.

It is vital infrastructure and it was a mistake to privatize it in the first place. Handing control over to a government with ties to 9/11 and OBL is just insane.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. You seem to assume that our goverment has no ties to 9/11 or to

OBL.

Or did I misunderstand your post?

[iconoclastNYC]

33. Nice try.

Try again.

[sandnsea]

36. The Dems were IN FRONT on this story

Sorry to burst your bubble on that, but Hillary and Menendez introduced legislation and were on this before anybody else was.

And no, we don't have to nationalize the ports in order to control management of the ports. That's a red herring that the left came up with to have an excuse to bash Democrats. Getting pretty routine by now.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Red herring? LOL.

Its the proper response, and it puts the republicans on the defensive.

[zippy890]

37. Strongly agree with you - absolutely

it should be government owned & run.

:thumbsup: