WASHINGTON - The news that Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deeper into the United States drew an angry reaction Friday from labor leaders, safety advocates and members of Congress.
They said Mexico has substandard trucks and low-paid drivers that will threaten national security, cost thousands of jobs and endanger motorists on the northern side of the Mexican border.
The Bush administration on Thursday announced its plan to have U.S. inspectors oversee Mexican trucking companies that carry cargo across the border.
"This program will make trade with Mexico easier and keep our roads safe at the same time," Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said Friday. She announced details of the plan to let 100 Mexican trucking companies travel beyond the border area while she was in El Paso, Texas, at the Bridge of the Americas, which connects to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
Said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa: "They are playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways."
Access to all U.S. highways was promised by 2000 under the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, as was access through Mexico for U.S. carriers.
That aspect of NAFTA was stalled by lawsuits and disagreements between the two countries, though Canadian and U.S. trucks travel freely across the northern border.
The Bush pilot project will let Mexican truck companies travel from Mexico throughout the United States and back. No hazardous material shipments will be permitted.
According to the Transportation Department, U.S. inspectors will inspect every truck and interview drivers to make sure they can read and speak English. They'll examine trucks and check the licenses, insurance and driving records of the Mexican drivers. Inspectors will also verify that the trucking companies are insured by U.S.-licensed firms.
The first Mexican trucks are expected to drive into the United States beyond the border area in about 60 days, the Transportation Department says.
National Transportation Safety Board' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman questioned how the U.S. could spare sending inspectors to Mexico when only a tiny percentage of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. truck companies are inspected every year.
"They lack the inspectors to conduct safety reviews of at-risk domestic carriers," Hersman said. "That situation only gets worse if resources are diverted to the border."
One-fourth of all U.S. trucks are taken off the road after random inspections because they're so unsafe, she said. An even higher percentage of Mexican trucks are taken off the road at Texas border crossings, she said.
Mexican carriers insist their rigs meet U.S. standards. And according to the Transportation Department, 240 federal and 300 state government employees deal with Mexican truck issues.
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, said inspections will be meaningless because the trucks won't have black boxes that record how long a driver has been behind the wheel.
"They have no way of telling how many hours these truck drivers have been driving before they get to the U.S., let alone when they get here," Claybrook said.
Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, announced a March 8 hearing to determine whether the arrangement meets safety requirements.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., chair of the House Highways subcommittee, said Congress will keep a close eye on the program.
Mexico responded to the U.S. announcement by saying it will allow trucks from 100 U.S. companies to travel across the border.
Business groups have wanted the border opened to avoid middleman costs of transferring goods from Mexican to U.S. trucks.
The American Trucking Associations said it supports the program, but wants to make sure that U.S. and Mexican truck companies are held to the same standards.
"We also are waiting to see that when US carriers are allowed to travel into Mexico that the regulatory and permitting process that U.S. carriers undergo is fair and transparent," the ATA said in a statement.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Is Big Brother watching
Looks like one way or another big brother will be able to track us all.
Be Afraid: Powder-Sized RFID Chips
Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:58AM EST
See Comments (195)
Everyone's so paranoid about the RFID chips that are already in place in so many parts of our lives, so here's an item (via Engadget and Pink Tentacle) about Hitachi's new powder-sized RFID chips to make us even more scared of Big Brother (or little-Brother-ID thief). RFID chips are tiny microchips that use radio waves to do everything from conduct credit card transactions (as on those little key-fob-Paypass MasterCard thingies) and pay for tolls (EZ Pass and its ilk) to keeping track of your devices and travel (U.S. passports).
Hitachi plans to start marketing these new chips—seriously no bigger than a speck of dust at 0.05 x 0.05 mm—in two to three years. The company says this super-tiny chip can be used in paper, currency, gift certificates, and the like, but as some sites have pointed out, today's chips are already small enough for those uses. So, as Engadget cracked, does this mean we should be watching what we eat in case of some James-Bond-style pepper-shaker swap?
Maybe, but is the terror around RFID over-hyped? According to most proponents of the technology, and my own experiences paying with PayPass at my local drug store, you really need to physically tap the RFID chip to something for the transaction to go through. And yet, when I go through a toll booth, my RFID-enabled EZ Pass box is only about ten feet away from the sensor. So maybe it is time to watch what you eat, lest Big Brother starts to track you wirelessly (or you spill some RFID powder from which evil ID thieves can extract your vital stats!)
What do you think? Is RFID worth the convenience or is it setting up some dangerous privacy-invasion precedents?
Be Afraid: Powder-Sized RFID Chips
Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:58AM EST
See Comments (195)
Everyone's so paranoid about the RFID chips that are already in place in so many parts of our lives, so here's an item (via Engadget and Pink Tentacle) about Hitachi's new powder-sized RFID chips to make us even more scared of Big Brother (or little-Brother-ID thief). RFID chips are tiny microchips that use radio waves to do everything from conduct credit card transactions (as on those little key-fob-Paypass MasterCard thingies) and pay for tolls (EZ Pass and its ilk) to keeping track of your devices and travel (U.S. passports).
Hitachi plans to start marketing these new chips—seriously no bigger than a speck of dust at 0.05 x 0.05 mm—in two to three years. The company says this super-tiny chip can be used in paper, currency, gift certificates, and the like, but as some sites have pointed out, today's chips are already small enough for those uses. So, as Engadget cracked, does this mean we should be watching what we eat in case of some James-Bond-style pepper-shaker swap?
Maybe, but is the terror around RFID over-hyped? According to most proponents of the technology, and my own experiences paying with PayPass at my local drug store, you really need to physically tap the RFID chip to something for the transaction to go through. And yet, when I go through a toll booth, my RFID-enabled EZ Pass box is only about ten feet away from the sensor. So maybe it is time to watch what you eat, lest Big Brother starts to track you wirelessly (or you spill some RFID powder from which evil ID thieves can extract your vital stats!)
What do you think? Is RFID worth the convenience or is it setting up some dangerous privacy-invasion precedents?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Translating
Words Women Use
:1.) FINE: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
2.) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
3.) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.4.
) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!
5.) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)
6.) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
7.) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you're welcome.
8.) Whatever: Is a women's way of saying F@!K YOU!
9.) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking "what's wrong", for the woman's response refer to # 3.
Tell this to the men you know, to warn them about arguments they can avoid if they remember the terminology. Ask other women they can verify it's true. Good luck everyone bye for now.
:1.) FINE: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
2.) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
3.) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.4.
) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!
5.) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)
6.) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
7.) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you're welcome.
8.) Whatever: Is a women's way of saying F@!K YOU!
9.) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking "what's wrong", for the woman's response refer to # 3.
Tell this to the men you know, to warn them about arguments they can avoid if they remember the terminology. Ask other women they can verify it's true. Good luck everyone bye for now.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Chinese New Year
Hope everyone had a great Chinese New Year and drank like pigs. For those of you fortunate enough to get tomorrow off for Presidents Day go out and enjoy yourselves again. Lots of holidays this week we have Ash Wednesday(christian) and George Washington's Birthday Thursday So have a fun filled week everyone. Later.
Three things to think about
1. COWS 2. THE CONSTITUTION 3. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
COWS - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.
THECONSTITUTION - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
TEN COMMANDMENTS - The real reason we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse--You cannot post, "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie," in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians--it creates a hostile work environment.
COWS - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.
THECONSTITUTION - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.
TEN COMMANDMENTS - The real reason we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse--You cannot post, "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie," in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians--it creates a hostile work environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)