Open America's Water Act - POLL

[QUOTE=tengineer;38595]I don’t think anyone was trying to insult you but we all get a little defensive when it comes to the Jones Act because it is the only thing protecting the US mariner.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the reassurance…I do have a sensitive disposition if attacked personally and am likely to run and hide.

From my ignorant perspective all I am perceiving is that McCain is totally negligent, the Jones Act is good for us and how dare you question it.

If the Jones Act is the “only” thing protecting the US mariner then how come the US mariner is thriving (if I can use that word), on non Jones Act vessels?

Going back to those 42 vessels and the relatively large numbers of US seafarers employed on those and other non Jones Act vessels, if the Act were repealed, would we then expect to see a [significant] increase in foreign built but US Flagged and crewed vessels or a decline in that number?

Someone (who I thought knowledgeable on the subject), once told me that Jones had no interest in preserving the Merchant Marine, but that his primary goal was protecting the railway freight business and this was his way of getting it done. Is that true? Was our shipping industry so bad in the 1920’s that we needed this type of protection back then?

[QUOTE=tengineer;38595]
Vessels not built in the USA but now engaged in work normally reserved for Jones Act vessels were built elsewhere and reflagged.[/QUOTE]

Those ships are NOT engaged in work normally reserved for Jones Act vessels. They are American owned and manned ships that trade between the US and foreign ports or between foreign ports only. They are ships that if they were not American flagged would trade under some other flag with some other nationality of crew. They would accrue no benefit to the US or the American seafarer. What percentage of seafarers? A large percentage of our deep sea mariners. Instead of listening to talk radio, folks like Bakelite should read the MARAD list of MSP ships and see just what they are and then research where they sail and for what companies.

An American business has as much right to buy a foreign built ship as we have to buy a foreign car. And like the cars we drive, ships are made of materials and components manufactured all over the world, there is no such thing as a 100 percent American ship or a 100 percent Korean ship.

This latest attack on the Jones Act and now this ignorant assault on the MSP is what we get when people believe everything they hear on talk radio from ignorant fools who make a living as agitators.

If anyone thinks the Jones Act has hindered the cleanup read this:
http://www.marinelink.com/news/interfered-cleanup-spill334679.aspx

Then contact the CG or anyone else who is involved in obtaining ships and support for the cleanup. Ask them if the Jones Act is holding things up. And then consider that some of ships the anti Jones Act crowd wants to let destroy the American Merchant Marine are prohibited from trading domestically in the country whose flag they fly. Their Jones Act equivalent won’t permit them to work in their own country so these morons are happy to have them destroy more of our economy. Make sure you know something about the side you are taking Bakelite, they are delighted to have ignorant people beating the drum for them, they thrive on it.

[QUOTE=Old Bakelite;38623]
If the Jones Act is the “only” thing protecting the US mariner then how come the US mariner is thriving (if I can use that word), on non Jones Act vessels?

Going back to those 42 vessels and the relatively large numbers of US seafarers employed on those and other non Jones Act vessels, if the Act were repealed, would we then expect to see a [significant] increase in foreign built but US Flagged and crewed vessels or a decline in that number? [/QUOTE]

The Jones Act is not “the only thing” that protects American Merchant shipping. The non-Jones act American flag vessels such as the Alabama are subsidized by the U.S. government.

[QUOTE=Old Bakelite;38623]Someone (who I thought knowledgeable on the subject), once told me that Jones had no interest in preserving the Merchant Marine, but that his primary goal was protecting the railway freight business and this was his way of getting it done.[/QUOTE]

Before you start regurgitating anti Jones Act and antii MSP rhetoric in my neighborhood, I strongly suggest you read the Act:

http://www.1800jonesact.com/maritime_statutes/46USC101_121.html

and spend a bit of time studying the history of the American Merchant Marine.

The only connection with railroads is that under the Jones Act, seafarers are provided with many of the health and injury protection that were formerly only afforded to railway workers : “Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply…”

And the idea that an American worker might have some kind of recourse against an employer or corporation is more than some people can stomach. They will, as we are seeing now, go to any length and tell any lie in order to increase their own profits.

[QUOTE=tengineer;38595]If it means I have to pay a few cents more for a product delivered by a US vessel I will do so, I support my fellow working folks[/QUOTE]

I am not picking on your posts tengineer, I appreciate that you are an ally, it is just that some of your comments provide an excellent lead-in to other issues.

The American consumer doesn’t benefit one cent on the difference in costs to operate an American flagged ship vs a Liberian flagged rustbucket manned by Asian peasants working for $300 a month. The difference is pocketed by the shipowner and the charterer, neither of whom pay American taxes.

The reason the North Carolina pig farmers bought John McCain is because they want to be able to ship subsidized grain down the Mississippi on barges built in Korea and manned by displaced peasants from Central America or Mexico who are happy to be paid in what they find left in the corners of the holds. With the Jones Act out of the way, when they get hurt they can just be mailed back to their village and replaced with another one.

EDIT ADDED: Oh, just realized I made a mistake, those barges won’t be built in Korea, the Koreans won’t work for fish heads and rice any more, they will be built in Viet Nam or some other “developing nation” where labor costs less than water, and since seaworthiness won’t matter anymore (the threat of Jones Act lawsuits for deaths related to unseaworthiness no longer hangs over the heads of any American businessman) they can be built out of old shipping containers.

Senator McCain LEAVES Washington…

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

OP-ED by Tony Munoz, Editor-in-Chief of the Maritime Executive Magazine and the MarEx Newsletter

To: The Honorable John McCain

Dear Senator McCain:

With all due respect, it’s time for you to LEAVE Washington because the agricultural lobbyists have persuaded you to dispose of one of the most essential pillars of national security for profits. Even our Founding Fathers acknowledged the national security implications of moving U.S. cargoes on U.S. vessels within U.S. waters.

Your bill to repeal the Jones Act, S-325, states: ”Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.”

Excuse me, sir, but are these the same “less competitive” U.S. farmers who received $15 billion in farm subsidies in 2009 and $245 billion in subsidies since 1995? I hope you are not willing to dispose of the U.S. Merchant Marine simply because six of the top 20 farm subsidy recipients in 2009 were from Arizona? Since 1995, these same six recipients have received over $57 million in subsidies. You should know that the Jones Act companies your Senate bill intends to get rid of have not received a single penny in subsidies since the Reagan era.

Since 1995, Washington has paid out one quarter of a trillion dollars in farm subsidies. Meanwhile, in 2009, the Jones Act companies provided nearly 500,000 American jobs that created $35.5 billion in value-added GDP contributions and about $22.6 billion in labor compensation. Furthermore, according to a recent Transportation Institute study, the Jones Act generates $100.3 billion in gross economic output and about $11.4 billion in taxes to federal, state, and local governments.

Sure, since 1995 the U.S. Merchant Marine has received $1.5 billion in Military Security Program (MSP) subsidies. But these monies were authorized to support the U.S. military’s complex supply lines. I hope you know that the American merchant marine began when patriots captured the British schooner HMS Margretta in June of 1775. The U.S. Merchant Marine predates the U.S. Navy (1775) and the U.S. Coast Guard (1790) and has been an integral part of every war this nation has fought. John Adams, our second president, said in his Memoirs, “No group of individuals did more for establishing our country than the American Merchant Seamen and Privateers. Their record speaks eloquently of their devotion and sacrifices.”

The Merchant Marine lost 733 ships and 8,651 lives in WWII. In the Vietnam War, it transported 95 percent of all the supplies used by the U.S. military and, in the first Gulf War, delivered 11 million tons of supplies to the troops. In the first year of the Iraqi war, the USMM delivered 61 million tons of cargo and nearly 1.1 billion gallons of fuel. After Hurricanes Rita and Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, the operating Jones Act companies were there to provide assistance, and many of these same companies were first on the scene during the Haiti earthquake crisis.

In the post-WWII era, the USMM transported nearly 45 percent of global trade on 2,000 U.S.-flagged bottoms, but by 1980 lobbyists for foreign concerns had that number down to four percent. During the Reagan era, the Office of Management and Budget concluded that “national security arguments were not strong enough to justify public assistance to the maritime industries.” So Reagan did away with Construction Differential Subsidies, Operating Differential Subsidies and Title XI. However, while Title XI does exist today, it only puts $100 million of guaranteed construction loans into the maritime system.

Senator McCain, did you know that Jones Act mariners ARE the U.S. Merchant Marine? The U.S. government struggled to find qualified mariners to man the supply ships during the Desert Shield and Desert Storm campaigns. The deterioration of civilian maritime support capabilities may very well prove to be the “Achilles Heel” of the nation’s defense.

On September 11, 2001, this nation was attacked by terrorists and the wounds are barely healed. We are still fighting two wars overseas against terrorists who make threats against us daily. States like Arizona are enacting their own laws to protect their citizens from the influx of illegal immigrants. And you want to repeal the Jones Act and open our waterways to foreign ships so that a few well-subsidized farmers can save a few pennies per ton?

This nation’s highway transportation infrastructure is crumbling and congestion is clogging our cities and highways. Pollutants from cars and trucks are killing and infecting our people. Today, there are proposed programs to alleviate highway congestion by putting cargoes on vessels operated by U.S. merchant mariners on a coastwise trading system.

This is not the time to repeal U.S. cabotage. This is the time to build a strong nation with secured waterways and borders. The adverse consequences of SB-325 on the economy and the American people are too profound to contemplate. It is time for a U.S. maritime renaissance to put our citizens back to work and secure our waterways from threats from aboard. Please, pull the bill and then fade away into retirement, for you have forgotten what once made this nation great.

Respectfully,

Tony Munoz

It’s impossible to not view these these political maneuverings as grossly opportunistic. Ever since I began my education in the MM I’ve been appalled how much Washington and the American people take merchant seaman for granted. If McCain or other political representatives can’t understand how it’s in the nations best interest to maintain a strong merchant fleet and seafarers, God help us all. I’m so tired of “the little guy” getting crushed underfoot for the sake of ever larger corporate profits. To our dear representatives in Washington, I have a suggestion…why don’t you take your indignation and focus it on curbing the wasteful spending and government inefficiencies which also cost the taxpayers billions of dollars each year.
Wait, what am I thinking? That would require real effort, backbone, and determination, something which they have very little of…

[QUOTE=Steamer;38641]EDIT ADDED: Oh, just realized I made a mistake, those barges won’t be built in Korea, the Koreans won’t work for fish heads and rice any more, they will be built in Viet Nam or some other “developing nation” where labor costs less than water, and since seaworthiness won’t matter anymore (the threat of Jones Act lawsuits for deaths related to unseaworthiness no longer hangs over the heads of any American businessman) they can be built out of old shipping containers.[/QUOTE]

Actually it may be Koreans earning the profits but off the backs of other Asians in other asian countries. Koreans have opened the 4th largest shipyard in Asia here in Subic bay Philippines and are building and even larger one in Mindanao Philippines

Dear All-

Our firm has set up an easy method for you to send a targeted email to the Senators on the committee where Senator McCain’s Repeal of the Jones Act is pending. The process is very simple and you only need to be 18 and above and a U.S. citizen or resident alien. Finally, you may change the wording of the pre-worded letter if you wish. The link is: http://www.capwiz.com/jonesactquestions/issues/alert/?alertid=15190566&PROCESS=Take+Action

Thank you.

I ashamed to say that Sen. Coryne is my senator. I already sent him an email telling him what I though about his support of this bill and to please contact me so he may educate me on why he thinks the bill is a good idea, surprise it’s been a week and nothing. But what can you expect when you don’t have millions to spend on election campaigns. The sad thing is I though he had a good head on his shoulders and a back bone.

As for Sen. Hutchenson, she’s an idiot and I pray to god that she isn’t elected as Governor of TX and I hope she loses her reelection bid for senator.

I hate to say this but right now with a bill with this much Republican backing will die before it ever reaches the President, who actually wants to keep the Jones Act around. So I could be said that this could just be one of those things were they know it’s going to fail but they can go back to the Agriculture Lobby and say hey we tried, so how about some more money? Still makes me sick though.

I just took the poll and noticed that 4 people are for the so-called Open America’s Water Act. Who the hell are those 4 people and why are they here on gCaptain?

[QUOTE=Steamer;38313]
Call me cynical but the “honorable senator from Arizona” has his head up his two sided ass. Cabotage, and that is the part of the Jones Act that he and his contributors want everyone to believe is the evil of the Act is part of nearly every maritime nation’s policy…
This whole bill is a cynical attempt to undo what little protection remains for the American merchant marine. It was submitted under the cloud of fear, panic, and misinformation surrounding the gulf oil spill. …
To close this rant, does anyone else find it incredible that the good senator’s mailbox is full and he is taking no input from those who don’t have his personal contact and contribution information? Has anyone ever tried to submit a message to one of these pirates on his/her website. Unless you provide an address in their constituency, they won’t accept it. They will however take money from any source, no questions asked. Who is paying this American hero to slap the face of the American mariner, the ones who supported him in Vietnam and who manned the ships that did NOT turn around and refuse to enter the Persian Gulf? Where does he think the mariners will come from next time we have to reflag a fleet of ships to have a reason to protect them as we did in the “tanker war”? The crews of those ships were real heroes, they were American mariners, the same people John McCain now wants to flush down the lobbyist’s toilet. Has his memory faded as quickly as his regard and respect for the nation that made him a hero, or does he only remember who wrote the last check he cashed? Shame on you John McCain.[/QUOTE]

Dear Steamer-

Great comments! I believe this bill will go nowhere but was raised at the insistence of the oil companies to “deflect” the reaction bills from the DWH fiasco that are currently moving through Congress to [among many other things] (1) include non-pecuniary damages in death Jones Act and DOHSA claims; (2) repeal the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability act; and (3) require MODu, Self-Propelled MODUs, Drillships and MODUs-DPV that extract hydrocarbons on the OCS and within the 200 mile “Economic Zone” to be U.S. flagged.

Also, once again, you can send this “Senator” and other Senators on the Committee where this bill will be discussed a pre-worded letter AGAINST this bill by clicking here

You can re-word the letter before you send it if you wish. It is free, fast, and anyone in the household over 18 can do it if they are a US Citizen or Resident Alien.

Keep the Faith!

Anti-MSP rhetoric enclosed.

No one sees the MSP law as ultimately saving mariner jobs at the cost of shipbuilding and repair industry? Nor sees the multi-millon dollar operating agreement to offset expensive US crews as as much of subsidizing one sector as Sen McCain appears to be doing?

MSP may have started as a nice idea for those then 42 ships, now 60 actually. But wait—it’s actually much more than 60. Foreign owners bring vessels into US flag without having to comply with expensive USCG rules simply by being ‘militarily useful’ (“Yes, I can haul a pickup truck over water!”) and offering preferred rates to Military freight. And since they are willing to bring in these non-MSP slot vessels into US flag without the subisdy (yet still give discounts–but hopefully won’t have to), isn’t it proof of a value in that employment that suggests we can pay less in operating agreements for those 60?

What about shipbuilding? Why would anyone bother to build, except to replace a Jones Act hull? But the government is there to save the day again, we’ll build more MSC ships! But doesn’t that suggest we could have less MSP ships once they are online? Apparently not, no one sees this as wasteful?

And what do these foreign owned (ultimately they are, let’s be honest) do, try to remove as many merchant mariners that the Coast Guard will allow off the COI. I thought MSP was for maintaining the merhant mariners? They should be full crewed all the time, and with an extra 3rd. And they should be forced to have all ship repair and dockings in the US in my opinion. The tradeoff of merchant mariners jobs versus shipbildng and repair is not even a close comparison in my mind if it was really looked at thoroughly. Consider the impact of shipyards-- lucrative to local economies and local governments, less tax on people and property with a stronger industrial base. Instead, how many mariners on that new MSP ship? How much does that income tax help local communities over shipbuilders/repair? Maybe Edison Chouest wll tak their act ‘deep draft’ and then you will see a strongly protective gov’t for the shipbuilding and repair industry.

Speaking of offshore boat companies though---- if the Jones Act and mariner jobs and keeping foreign mariners off the outer contintental shelf means so much in the wake of DWH— why is no one complaining about the dozens of US offshore support boats working foreign with hundreds of foriegn mariners vice US ones (also allowed by law—special interests!).

What a stupidity !!
Every country has same cabotage rules in order to protect own people regardless of cost.
They are making sure that no foreign ships trading between their two ports.
Even if the ship swung by foreign ports between the two ports, the ship will be turned down.

There are 2,000 Japanese coastal carriers, and there are 6,000 Chinese coastal carriers…

Can U.S. ships be allowed to go in to their domestic shipping market?
You just smoked it too much, McCain…

If you are U.S. shipowner, you want to go in to their cabotage(cheat their law) by swinging by two, three
foreign ports in between… You will be under Microscope for a long time and you end up laying up your ship.
If the cargo was loaded in Japan, you foreign ship can not discharge the same cargo in Japan, regardless
how many foreign ports you have been through.

Because you will never get the last port clearance…And your ship will be auctioned off by the court…
I have witnessed that a lot…

[B]There are too many and large holes in Jones Act, it is a time to appeal not repeal…[/B]

Why we pull down our pants while other countries don’t even think about it…what a stupidity…
If all other countries allow foreign ships to their domestic trade,
then we only can think about it on the fairness issue…

If it was Japan in place of the U.S., all the foreign flag boats/ships/vessels/rigs working in GOM
would have been arrested a long time ago…

What a McCain stupidity !!

how does one say thank you to a contributor, other than just writing thax. m

[B] [/B]
[B]Dallas firm’s push to help oil cleanup may not be so clear [/B]

[B][B]09:17 AM CDT on Thursday, July 8, 2010[/B]

[/B]
[B]By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News
dmichaels@dallasnews.com [/B]
[B][/B]

WASHINGTON – When Dallas investment banker Fred McCallister told the Senate last week about his effort to get more foreign ships to clean up oil in the Gulf of Mexico, he blamed a maritime law that protects U.S. ship owners and workers.

In fact, McCallister’s effort stalled because BP didn’t think the skimmers proposed by his firm, Allegiance Capital Corp., could do the job. Yet he told senators that he hadn’t gotten any response to his offer, even though BP’s response had come a day earlier. Also left unsaid to the senators or reporters who interviewed him: Allegiance found the vessels with the help of its chairman’s brother, Kenneth Mahmood, who served 18 months in prison in Washington state during the 1980s for theft and securities fraud.

McCallister has become an assertive spokesman as Allegiance, a small investment firm with almost no history of political involvement, mounts a public relations offensive to urge BP to hire its vessels. The firm recruited Texas Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison to its cause; they endorsed its efforts in news releases issued by Allegiance. Allegiance says it has made several offers of different ships to BP. After BP turned down its initial proposal, saying the skimmers were too small, the Dallas firm offered larger boats from Greece, Malta, France and Panama. This week, Allegiance said its boats are from the Netherlands. An Allegiance spokeswoman said Wednesday that the company might meet with BP next week about the latest group of ships.

McCallister said he didn’t tell the senators about BP turning down his initial offer because he didn’t think it was “a final determination.” McCallister, an Allegiance vice president, said he didn’t know about Mahmood’s criminal record. “I hope to continue the dialogue with BP,” McCallister wrote in an e-mail. Even if BP turns it down, Allegiance has offered vessels directly to Gulf Coast states.

If states contract with Allegiance for its foreign vessels, the maritime law known as the Jones Act could be a problem. The law essentially prohibits foreign vessels from working within three nautical miles of U.S. shores. Ships working for the states would probably be recovering oil closer to the shore. McCallister says he applied for a Jones Act waiver on June 16. “The bottom line is, at this stage of the game, we are quite frustrated with the fact we haven’t had waivers issued,” McCallister told the Senate Commerce Committee on June 30.

Push for a waiver

Senate Republicans, led by Hutchison, have said his experience shows the need for legislation to temporarily waive the Jones Act.
A spokesman for Commerce Committee Republicans declined to address Mahmood’s background or McCallister’s testimony to the committee. He reiterated the need for Hutchison’s bill. “More than two months into the oil spill, there is still no clear process for Jones Act waivers, which are necessary to enable foreign-owned vessels and skimmers to help clean up the spill,” spokesman Joe Brenckle said.
“During an environmental crisis, applicants deserve a timely response – and, more importantly, affected communities do. Senator Hutchison’s goal all along has been to make all resources available to aid in the cleanup.”

Obama administration officials say the Jones Act has not stood in the way of any offers of international assistance. The law does not restrict foreign vessels from working more than three miles from shore. The leaking well is more than 40 miles south of Louisiana.
The administration says it has 550 skimmers working in the Gulf of Mexico, including dozens of foreign vessels that haven’t needed Jones Act waivers.

Not fit for cleanup?

U.S. vessel owners have been annoyed by Allegiance’s work to get foreign-flagged boats to the scene. One offshore association says the firm’s vessels are not specially designed to recover spilled oil, although Allegiance insisted that they could be fitted with skimming arms and do the job.
“What they are really saying is they want to bring over some very old foreign-flagged boats to use in the gulf when there are 70 or 80 U.S. vessels out of work,” said Ken Wells, president of the Offshore Marine Service Association in Harahan, La. “Their efforts have turned into a sideshow for the people who have actually tried to clean up this spill in the gulf.” On June 18, Wells e-mailed McCallister to ask about his plan. He said he got a call from Mahmood instead. “I understood he was the guy who had the boats,” Wells said. When the two discussed the Jones Act, it became apparent that wasn’t the main impediment to getting the boats to the gulf. "He said, ‘more than a Jones Act waiver, I need a contract.’ "
Wells, who has members working for BP, said he offered to help Mahmood find out what the Coast Guard or other agencies needed, but wanted to know exactly what Allegiance was selling. Mahmood later left Wells a voice mail in which he said: “We can do this together and clean up … we can start three miles offshore. Everything depends on a purchase order, which you are going to work to help get.” Mahmood, 66, didn’t return phone messages seeking comment. He was convicted in 1983 for theft and securities fraud, according to the Washington State Patrol. He entered prison in February 1987 and was paroled in July 1988, according to the Washington State Department of Corrections.

According to articles in [I]The Seattle Times[/I], Mahmood solicited money from people to invest in two private Canadian oil and gas companies. Prosecutors charged him with taking $45,000 from two Seattle women to invest in the companies, but instead he pocketed the money, according to the newspaper. Several other investors lost money in the scheme, but Mahmood was not charged for all of those losses, the newspaper wrote.
A Seattle police official quoted by the newspaper said that Mahmood was “the best con man I ever worked on.” Mahmood is now president of a Seattle-based company, Commodore Inc., which markets yachts, cruise ships and ferries for sale. Its website also says the company provides vessels that house thousands of offshore workers.

Chain of proposals

David Mahmood, Allegiance’s chairman, confirmed his brother’s past trouble but said his role in finding the vessels was limited.
Kenneth Mahmood handled some discussions with vessel owners and other shipping officials because he has “some of the technical knowledge and expertise,” David Mahmood said. “He’ll make nothing out of this deal, other than what I [as] his brother might want to provide him,” David Mahmood said. “And believe me, I have helped him plenty in the past.” One company that stands to profit if Allegiance finds a taker for its vessels is Chain Electric, a Mississippi electrical contractor. The company has provided air boats, ATVs and other equipment to BP.
Bobby Chain, the company’s chairman, said he brought the proposal to McCallister and Allegiance in the first place, after deciding that housing vessels, skimmers and other boats were needed in the gulf. Chain said he asked McCallister and Allegiance to help find the right ships.
“Just as we are working for them now and supplying a number of boats and other equipment, we would be making some profit on it,” Chain said.

Chain said he promoted the offer to BP through the lieutenant governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, who “is a good friend of mine.” He said Bryant “took a copy of our offer to hand it to” the BP official. A spokesman for Bryant confirmed that he passed the proposal to BP. BP "didn’t look us up to say, ‘Find us some ships,’ " Chain said. “We said here is some more equipment we could furnish if you like it.”<!-- Image1 start // Allegiance Capital Corp. </strong>has offered foreign skimmer ships to BP - and directly to the Gulf Coast states - to help clean up the oil spill. ">Allegiance Capital Corp.
[B]Allegiance Capital Corp. [/B]has offered foreign skimmer ships to BP - and directly to the Gulf Coast states - to help clean up the oil spill.

// Image1 end --> <!-- Image2 start //

// Image2 end -->
<!-- vstory end --><!–googleoff: all–><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> function autoFeed(theFeed){ var script = document.createElement(‘link’); script.type = “application/rss+xml”; script.rel = “alternate” script.title = "LOCAL/NEWS Top Stories " script.href = “http://www.dallasnews.com/” + theFeed; document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0].appendChild(script); } var rssFile = “rss/” var rssLink = “”; var qs = ‘/newskiosk/rss/dallasnewslatestnews.xml’ if (qs.length > 1) { rssFile = qs.substring(1,qs.length); if (rssFile.substring(0,1) == “/”) { rssFile = rssFile.substring(1,rssFile.length); } autoFeed(rssFile); } rssLink = “<a href=“http://www.dallasnews.com/” + rssFile + “” onClick=“window.open ('http://www.dallasnews.com/” + rssFile + “’,’’,‘toolbar=yes, width=500, height=600, left=10,top=10, screenX=500, screenY=200, status=yes, menubar=yes, location=yes, scrollbars=yes, resizable=yes’);return false”>”; yahooLink = “<a href=“http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http://www.dallasnews.com/” + rssFile + “” onClick=“window.open ('http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http://www.dallasnews.com/” + rssFile + “’,’’,‘toolbar=yes, width=500, height=600, left=10,top=10, screenX=500, screenY=200, status=yes, menubar=yes, location=yes, scrollbars=yes, resizable=yes’);return false”>” </SCRIPT><STYLE type=text/css>div#article_tools_bottom a{ font-size:9px;}</STYLE>

I e-mailed my illustreous senators with detailed points of objection to their plan. Cornyn responded with a newsletter and Hutchison with a canned hand-job…There’ll be more parasites exposed.

[QUOTE=injunear;39545]There’ll be more parasites exposed.[/QUOTE]

The horrible truth of the matter is that they do not fear exposure. They feel no shame for their actions, they only see “exposure” as marketing for the services they sell.

What you or I would describe as exposure is to them the pheromone that attracts lobbyists and their cash.

As long as people (and corporations) who cannot vote for a politician are allowed to send them money we will have a house of whores who hold no allegiance to anyone other than those who sign the biggest checks. Real campaign reform is the only way to return some degree of legitimacy to the halls of Congress.

[QUOTE=Steamer;39546]The horrible truth of the matter is that they do not fear exposure. They feel no shame for their actions, they only see “exposure” as marketing for the services they sell.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but the parasites I was refering to are the various charlatans and snake oil salesmen grabbing for a BP tit.

[QUOTE=injunear;40088]"… the parasites I was refering to are the various charlatans and snake oil salesmen grabbing for a BP tit."[/QUOTE]

Ahh, THOSE parasites :slight_smile:

I consider them carpetbaggers, they live off the carcass but at least they perform some task that requires doing. Kind of like maggots, they are bred and prosper in corruption but they don’t create it.

The other parasites are the dangerous ones, they deliver the carcass because they make their fortune doing it. They waste what they have destroyed and move on to another victim.

Given a choice, I’ll take a maggot any day