Guest Post: "For Whom The Bell Tolls"

http://www.universalcargo.com

In light of my recent series about the presidential candidates and maritime issues, I found this Op-Ed by Tony Munoz, editor-in-chief of Maritime Executive magazine timely. It is reprinted here without his permission. Find the original article here.

The Administration’s ZERO Bucks Plan for Maritime

An exuberant President Obama last week unveiled a $447 billion infrastructure plan to quickly inject money into the economy and create jobs. The plan included $50 billion to jumpstart surface transportation projects, but the strategy once again emphasized rail, air and highways. That’s right: “ZERO” bucks for maritime again.

President Obama’s Infrastructure speech rang the warning bells as he said, “Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?” He continued: “Ask yourselves—where would we be right now if the people before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports?”

During 2010, China spent about 9% of its GDP on infrastructure and Europe invested 5%. The U.S currently ranks twenty-third in overall infrastructure quality, somewhere between Spain and Chile and spends only 2.4% of GDP on infrastructure. While it’s indisputable that the nation’s aging highways and bridges are in desperate need of repair, the fact is China’s 1.3 billion people are in need of a modern infrastructure and its government has lots of America’s money to invest in it.

The Summer of Our Discontent

The federal government currently spends about $50 billion annually on all forms of transportation. But the U.S. maritime sector gets “ZERO” bucks annually and is currently not part of the economic recovery plan to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs. When the President reminisced about past generations building the U.S. into an economic superpower, he forgot to mention that most of the economic wealth of those past generations was delivered on a fleet of U.S. ships.

Mr. President, America’s maritime heritage is the backbone of the nation’s economic greatness. U.S. commercial fleets were the workhorses of the Industrial Revolution and they delivered the harvests and manufactured products and bulk resources around the world. They supported the U.S. military in every armed conflict this nation has ever been in. And they delivered America’s generosity when natural disasters or famines inflicted harm and suffering to other people around the planet.

Jobs are what Americans want and need. And lots of new jobs are what it will take to push this economy out of the Great Recession. The disparity between rich and poor has never been greater. While the nation’s wealth disparity is calculated as the top 20 percent of Americans owning 84 percent of the nation’s wealth, it is the income disparity, which is now the greatest since 1928, that is causing massive unemployment and increased spending of 18 percent on food stamps. Today, of all nations in the world, the U.S. now has the largest income disparity of its people except for Luxembourg.

And while Americans need jobs, U.S. shipyards and waterways are empty. The only ships congesting U.S. ports are owned by foreigners and manned by foreign mariners. Today, the greatest trading nation with a $14.7 trillion economy doesn’t own a deepwater fleet or its own intermodal system. Why? Because there has not been a national maritime policy since the Reagan Administration.

If a nation is judged by its policies and budgets, then the Obama Administration’s 2012 budget for the Maritime Administration shows an absolute disregard for the U.S. maritime sector. While nations with coastlines or waterways consider shipyards and flagged fleets as national assets, the U.S. maritime sector will get a pittance of $357.8 million. Furthermore, the Administration sought to rescind more than $50 million from the Title XI loan guarantee program as well, but Congress refused to accede to the request.

The President’s transport infrastructure support includes an increase of 12 percent in DOT’s 2012 budget ($129 billion). Moreover, that is an increase of 66 percent since FY 2010. Highways will get $70.5 billion, transit $22.4 billion, railroad $8.3 billion and aviation $18.7 billion, and maritime will get $357.8 million to assist the military. Furthermore, the President’s $50 billion transport rejuvenation plan will go to rehabilitate 150,000 miles of existing roadways, to construct 4,000 miles of new railways and renovate 150 miles of airport runways. When it gets broken up again, the U.S. taxpayer will get to fix it again.

The U.S. has the 9th largest coastline (86,000 miles) in the world and 25,000 miles of inland navigable waterways. The U.S. has 360 commercial ports employing 13.3 million Americans, which contribute $3.15 trillion to the economy and provides $212.5 billion in federal taxes. U.S. inland waterways handle 63 million tons of cargo and contribute $74 billion to the economy. Yet the federal government has “NO” maritime policy.

The Administration needs to realize the nation cannot pave its way or railroad its way to inevitable growth. The U.S. maritime sector can alleviate highway congestion and urban pollution and save billions of dollars in fuel costs by transporting goods on water. The maritime infrastructure of coastline, waterways, shipyards, and ports is already in place. Mr. President, you don’t have to spend $50 billion to build the marine highway system. And if jobs are the #1 issue for Americans and for the Administration, the people can be put back to work very quickly by training them to work in the shipyards, on vessels, and in the ports. Imagine a budget surplus for the arts, education, mass transportation, and health care for the poor. Imagine….

If you believe in jobs and support rebuilding America, then join the Maritime Executive and a distinguished panel of U.S. maritime executives at CCMIT in Linthicum Heights, Maryland on October 12th and 13th, 2011 for “Rebuilding America and Creating Jobs - A Maritime Forum.”

New Lyrics For "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

The haunting tune is familiar to anyone who’s listened to popular music in the last four decades: Gordon Lightfoot’s "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald." Lightfoot’s ballad about the fate of the Great Lakes freighter is one of his most-played songs, but recent investigations have lead to the singer/songwriter changing the lyrics in light of new findings.

Background. At 13, 600 tons, Edmund Fitzgerald was one of the largest “iron boats” working the Great Lakes. After being launched in 1958, she carried ore throughout the Lakes and came to be know for her size, speed records, and “DJ Captain” Peter Pulcer, who played music through the ship’s PA system when she transited the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. Ernest McSorley was captain when Edmund Fitzgerald left Superior, Wisconsin on November 9, 1975 bound for Detroit. By the next day the ship was caught in a storm with 35-foot waves and hurricane-force winds. Over the course of several hours, McSorley reported that the Edmund Fitgerald was taking on water and had a bad list. At shortly after 7pm, he told the captain of another vessel that “We are holding our own.” The ship was never heard from again.

Several theories attempt to account for Edmund Fitzgerald’s fate. Unusually high winds and waves, a “rogue wave,” and shallow water have all been blamed. The ship itself and the actions of the crew have also been suspected, including the failure of the crew to properly secure the large cargo hatch on the ship’s deck.

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The following year, Lightfoot recorded the song for his album Summertime Dream. Although Lightfoot’s account sticks mainly to the facts known at the time, his lyrics speculate about events on the ship shortly before the sinking:

When suppertime came, the old cook came on deck sayin'.
Fellas, it's too rough to feed ya.
At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in, he said
Fellas, it's been good t'know ya

Although Lightfoot admitted that this verse was purely speculative –“It's the only verse in the whole song where I give myself complete poetic license,” he said in a 2010 interview -- a US Coast Guard report on the incident at the time blamed the failure of the hatch due to improper use of the clamps used to hold the hatch to the deck. Almost from the beginning, though, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the families and labor unions of the lost 29 crew members, challenged the Coast Guard’s findings. Lightfoot’s song was a painful reminder to the families, though, that the official cause of the Edmund Fitzgerald’s sinking was human error.

The Dive Detectives. The wreck itself was found in 1976. In the following decades various attempts – including one by Jean-Michel Cousteau. were made to discover what had caused the wreck. The History Channel program Dive Detectives set out to investigate in 2010, and came down firmly on the side of the “rougue wave” theory. According to the program’s website, their investigation

calls the official U.S. Coast Guard theory into question, and reveals another potential cause of the disaster.  They determine that a maritime phenomena known as a “rogue wave”— a giant wall of water that can reach heights as tall as a ten-story building— may have triggered the sinking.  Once dismissed as a sailor’s myth, rogue waves not only exist, they may occur far more frequently than once believed.

The producers of Dive Detectives contacted Lightfoot to ask about using his song in their program. After learning of their findings, he started changing the lyrics to his song in his live performances. The section now goes

When suppertime came, the old cook came on deck sayin'.
Fellas, it's too rough to feed ya.
At 7 p.m., it grew dark, it was then he said,
'Fellas it's been good to know ya.’

For the Dive Detectives trailer of the rogue wave theory of the sinking, click here.

For a Toronto Sun article on Lightfoot changing his lyrics, click here.

Mayflower and Speedwell

Note: this post originally appeared November 24, 2009.

On August 15, 1620 two ships departed Southampton, England with more than 100 colonists -- Separatists resistant to the Church of England -- bound for an area near the Hudson River in North America. The two ships were Mayflower and Speedwell, and the colonists would come to be known as the Pilgrims.

The earliest records of Mayflower date to 1607. At that time the vessel was captained (and partly owned) by Christopher Jones, who would serve as captain on the Pilgrims' voyage, and was engaged mainly in wine trade between England and France, with frequent trips into the Baltic Sea to Norway. Mayflower, 100 feet long and 25 wide, and was a typical merchant ship of her day.

Speedwell had a somewhat more colorful history. Originally named Swiftsure, she was built in 1577 and took part in the English defeat of the Spanish Armada. She was renamed Speedwell in 1605. At sixty tons she was only a third the size of Mayflower.

The Speedwell developed a leak shortly after the Pilgrims' departure in August 1620 and both ships returned to England for repairs. More leaks developed on their second attempt two weeks later, so the ships returned again. All the colonists crowded onto Mayflower, which departed for the last time September 16th. Soon after, and suspected by the colonists all along, it was discovered the Speedwell's own crew had caused the leaks to escape fulfilling their one-year contracts.

Sixty days after leaving England, Mayflower arrived not at the Hudson River, but at Cape Cod. The incoming winter weather had made precise navigation difficult. Jones has been mocked for missing "Virginia" by hundreds of miles, but the term Virginia at that time applied to most of the British-claimed area of the eastern seaboard, not just to the US state we know today.

Two people died along the way, including Dorothy Bradford, wife of colony leader William, who fell overboard accidentally. A legend that she committed suicide dates from the mid-1860s. Two were also born, one en route, and one that winter as the colonists waited out the winter aboard ship. It was during this winter that more than half the remaining passengers died, leaving only 53 to go ashore in March to begin setting up their colony, called Plymouth (this was not the first active European settlement in North America; St. Augustine, Florida had been founded more than fifty years before). Mayflower left for England the following month, arriving back there in May.

Capt. Jones died in 1622. Records indicate that Mayflower was probably broken up for her wood around 1624, although some records suggest she was still afloat as late as 1629. This may be confusing two ships of the same name, as a second ship named Mayflower sailed back to Plymouth colony that year. A replica, Mayflower II, was built and sailed to the US in the mid-1950s, captained by Australian mariner and writer Alan Villiers.

A 1920 claim by a barn owner in Jordans, England that his barn was made with wood from Mayflower has been disproved, but has occasionally been cited as fact by some media, including National Geographic and the TV quiz show Jeopardy!

Perhaps the most accessible account of the Pilgrims early history in North America is humorist Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates. Vowell also has better scholarship than many high school history textbook writers: the Mayflower Pilgrims were Separatists, not Puritans. For a firsthand account see William Bradford's own Of Plymouth Plantation.

For more on the early exploration and settlement of North America, see my post on Amerigo Vespucci.

For more on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, see my review of The Pirate Queen.

Telling Time

What time is it? 2017, of course.

My wife looked up from her computer and said to me: "Sixteen ten is four ten." I looked back at her in confusion. She repeated her statement. I still wasn't getting it. Was she talking to me in code? Was my wife a secret agent and I was only now finding out? Then it occurred to me: she was asking me a question about how time was told on ships: "1610 is 4:10?" She meant that 4:10pm was expressed as 1610 on ships using the 24-hour clock, or what some call military time.

It's common for seagoing vessels to use a 24-hour clock since most are 24-hour a day operations. It's easier to say that something is going to happen at 0700 or 1900 rather than risk confusion by saying it's going to happen at 7 o'clock and not be sure if that means am or pm. For those of us raised with a twelve-hour clock, this can be confusing at first and you have to convert the time in your head. To figure out what time 1610 is you subtract twelve hours from 16 to get 4, and you know it's "pm" because 16 is greater than 12 (1200 is noon). It's like learning a foreign language, though: after awhile you stop translating and just start thinking in 24-hour time.

Watches. Time on ship is also measured by watches, work periods meaning the same thing as a "shift" for land occupations. In the early Age of Sail, ship's crews were divided into two groups, also called watches, which switched off every four hours. William Bligh, of HMS Bounty fame, came up with a three-watch system of which a version is often still used today:

• Middle Watch: Midnight to 0400
• Morning Watch: 0400 to 0800
• Forenoon Watch: 0800 to 1200
• Afternoon Watch: 1200 to 1600
• First Dog Watch: 1600 to 1800
• Second Dog Watch: 1800 to 2000
• First Watch: 2000 to Midnight

Each watch was further subdivided by bells. The ship's bell was sounded once a half hour into the watch, twice one hour into the watch, and so on with eight bells marking the end of one watch and the beginning of another (or four bells in the case of the two hour dog watches).

In 1915, the US Congress mandated a change in the watch system for US-flagged vessels, consolidating the dog watches into one four-hour watch and requiring a three-watch system on most vessels. Thus, most crew members will work one four-hour watch, then have two off, thus working two four-hour watches each day (although there is often more work available or required during technically off-watch periods). Just to add to the confusion, these watches usually correspond to the same am and pm times on a 12-hours clock, so a crew member on watch 0400-0800 and 1600-2000 will say he or she stands the "four-to-eights."

The Republicans on Maritime Issues

Richard Shiro/AP

This is the last in my series of posts on maritime issues in the 2012 presidential election. Here I've tried to glean from various sources where the major contenders for the Republican nomination stand on the issues. Not surprisingly, I could find little or nothing on specific issues such as TWIC cards or the relationship of the Coast Guard to merchant mariners. 

Deepwater Horizon and Offshore Drilling

Michelle Bachman: She voted to open the outer continental shelf to drilling. “The one that has really hurt the economy in the most devastating way is the moratorium that President Obama put on after the oil spill that occurred. There was devastation that occurred because of the oil flow that occurred but there was nothing that was worse than the moratorium that he put on.”

Herman Cain: Called for “responsibly” relaxing regulations on energy industry. “Drill here, drill now.”

Newt Gingrich: Says oil and natural gas industries should be able to drill offshore reserves now blocked from development.

Jon Huntsman: Favors phasing out all energy subsidies (“Subsidies don’t work and that we can no longer afford them”) and cutting regulatory obstacles to drilling and production

Ron Paul: Favors removing restrictions on drilling.

Rick Perry: “This president has killed more jobs with his regulatory schemes that have gone forward and that knee-jerk reaction of stopping drilling and that is some of the fastest things that we can turn around with a new president.” Proposes opening off-limits waters inclusingthe Southern Atlantic and Alaskan outer continental shelves.

Mitt Romney: Supports drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves, and offshore Alaska.

Rick Santorum: Favors scaling back “oppressive regulation” hindering drilling elsewhere.

The Jones Act

Perry: “Gov. Perry supports the Jones Act that makes the domestic maritime industry strong, contributes to national and homeland security, and makes an important economic contribution to our nation. Governor Perry believes there are times during a national emergency when suspending the Jones Act may be in the best interest of the country, like when President George W. Bush suspended the Act after Hurricane Katrina.”

Size of the Navy

Cain: Former Department of the Navy employee. Called for upgrading and doubling the size of the U.S. Navy's Aegis surface combat system.

Hunstman: "A Pacific orientation may bring a dramatic change to 'the look' of our military. The Asia Pacific is a maritime theater whereas Europe was mostly a land theater. It is a region full of disputed islands, maritime borders, and resource claims when compared to the relative calm of other regions. The United States is a Pacific nation with vital interests tied to the region that cannot be compromised for the sake of additional defense savings. Losing presence and/or capabilities in the Asia Pacific are the wrong trade-offs to make as we approach the tough decisions about our future defense spending."

Romney: “In my first 100 days in office, I will take a series of measures to put these principles into action, and place America—and the world—on safer footing. Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense. I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.”

Santorum: “We need to improve our Navy with more ships.”

Inland Waterways and Infrastructure.

Bachmann: Voted “Yes” on Water Resources Development Act of 2007

Paul: “Today its easier to get funding to build infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.”

Monday Morning Mariner: President Barack Obama

President Obama visiting a Deepwater Horizon spill cleanup site

The two previous posts were rather long, but since those candidates took the time to answer the questions I put to them, I thought it worth the space to give their complete answers. President Obama did not respond to my questions, so we (and he) will have to live with his record on maritime issues as mariners decide who to vote for. On Wednesday, I'll look at the statements and records of the major Republican candidates.

Deepwater Horizon and Offshore Drilling. Early in his administration, Obama called for expanded offshore drilling. Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Obama Administration put a moratorium on all drilling that lasted several months. Even when permits began to be issued late last year, the pace was too slow for many critics. Most recently, the Administration has developed a five-year plan of what the Wall Street Journal called “modest expansion” of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico only – the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are still off limits.

The Jones Act. As a candidate in 2008, Obama said

The Jones Act is a vital part of our national defense and supports American workers. As President, I would fully enforce it. The Jones Act should be waived only under rare circumstances… Furthermore, maintaining the American merchant marine fleet is vital to our economy and national security. I would oppose any move to undermine this Act.

Despite this, Obama waived the Jones Act requirement more than 50 times last summer to allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport oil released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He was criticized heavily by American shipping companies, who said more than 30 US-flagged vessels were available but not utilized.

Size of the Navy. Under Obama, the number of “battle force ship” construction proposed in the federal budget has increased to levels not seen since the Cold War. A total of 32 such vessels were procured in Obama’s term, with 12 expected to be built in 2013, the most in any year since 1990. As a comparison, in each of Bill Clinton’s terms the Navy built 20 vessels, in George W. Bush’s first term it built 24, and in his second 20.

Inland Waterways and Infrastructure. Obama’s most recent economic bill included money for infrastructure improvements on land, but nothing for the nation’s inland waterways. At the same time, the Administration has proposed a user fee for vessels using locks and dams to help offset the costs of repairs.

TWIC Card. Obama signed a law late last year that provides for possible amendments to the TWIC process, specifically allowing mariners to receive their TWIC cards without a second trip to the TWIC center. The law only provides for s feasibility study of such a change.

Role of the US Coast Guard. Obama addressed the graduation class of the Coast Guard Academy earlier this year. He commented on the varied role of the Coast Guard in the modern world

And while we can never predict what the future may hold, we know that the complex missions asked of our Coast Guard have never been more important. Around the world, we need you to partner with other nations to secure their ports, protect the vital shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf, combat piracy off the Horn of Africa, and help train foreign partners from the Americas to Africa to Asia. Here at home, we need you to stop those smugglers, and protect our oceans, and prevent terrorists from slipping deadly weapons into our ports.

Candidate Matt Snyder

Arizona-born Republican Matt Snyder freely admits that's "It's true..I am holding a grudge." According to his website, he has been unemployed for a year and lost his home to foreclosure shortly after that. Despite this, he maintains an extensice campaign website, part of which is devoted to defeating the degenerative disease ALS. Find his site at http://mattsnyderforpresident.com/

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year, President Obama called for expanded exploration and drilling on the US’s continental shelf. But, following the explosion, the Administration placed a temporary ban on drilling. Did you support the President’s call for increased exploration at the time? What, if anything, would you have done differently than the President in response to the spill?

It is my understanding that the oil industry is private, so the president “calling” for expanded exploration and drilling really means that he’s calling for the gov’t departments that restrict exploration and drilling to ease up and let these things go on without bureaucratic interference. I agree that if US oil companies have reason to believe there is oil to be found, they are the cleanest, safest, most qualified entities in the world to have looking for it. At the same time, I agree that if these companies have determined that domestic supply can aid in meeting domestic demand, they are the cleanest, safest, most qualified entities in the world to have drilling for it.

American oil companies, and other companies which operate in industries that are potentially hazardous to the environment, operate with greater concern for the environment than any other companies around the world. I believe it is more hazardous to the environment to cease American exploration and drilling, while the world’s demand for oil is met by countries that do not have nature’s best interest at heart.

During the Deepwater Horizon incident, many in Washington and elsewhere blamed the Jones Act for slowing down the disaster response. Do you agree with this? Where do you stand on the Jones Act and various attempts to reform it?

From what I understand about the Jones Act, I would have to say I support it. Having considered the impact on the price of goods shipped to Hawaii, Alaska, and our territories, I find that the negative effects of repealing the Jones Act would far outweigh the benefits.

From my understanding of the law, US shipbuilders are not restricted from building ships in other places, those ships just couldn't be used to move goods and/or passengers between US ports. They're still able to compete internationally, on the international market, if they choose to purchase facilities and hire workers in foreign lands-- as well, they hold a virtual monopoly within the US for ships to be used in the types of transport regulated by the Jones Act. There is no question that union workers in the industry are glad to have the laws in place. Companies that purchase US-built ships for this purpose stand to lose the most by repealing the act. If international crews and ships are introduced into the market, operating at a fraction of the cost incurred by buying and hiring US ships and crews, one can easily imagine the financial turmoil within the industry.

These facts, even in combination, are not enough to win my support for repealing or keeping the law. What ultimately moves me to keep the law in place, is national security. As I mentioned before, this is the world we live in now-- post 9/11. To introduce international fleets into a market where so many vessels would be coming and going, would create a heavy risk to national security at a time when our Coast Guard is already heavily burdened with inspections, credentialing, and emergency situations. Ultimately, I feel it is necessary for government to play a part in issues of of national security, and the citizens of Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, etc., can either pay a few bucks less for their imported food and supplies, or they can sleep well at night with the peace of mind that comes from knowing that the cereal they feed their children was not delivered on a foreign-owned and operated ship that hauled barrels of nuclear waste out of China two weeks before they loaded up that cereal.

As to my belief that the Act slowed down the disaster response, I find it very hard to measure. I don't see how ships regulated in the movement between US ports would affect the movement of ships engaged in the act of clean up. I would have to see reports suggesting how the effort was hindered. Until then, I could not say that it was.

The US Navy currently operates more than 280 vessels. Should the current fleet be expanded, kept the same size, or reduced? Should Navy shipbuilding contracts always go to the lowest bidder, or should US shipyards be given preference?

My answer to the size of the fleet would depend on the use of the vessels currently in operation. I cannot imagine a reason to reduce the size of the fleet, unless there are vessels that simply are not utilized even in training.

Whenever the gov’t spends money, it should be spent in America. Even if it costs more to build ships here, putting American shipbuilders to work acts as a sort of stimulus to the economy. Taxpayers’ money sent overseas hurts, no matter what the reason.

Beyond jobs and economy, there is also a technological advantage to using US shipyards, conversely, a technological disadvantage is created when employing foreign companies to build them.

The American Waterways Operators estimates that the nearly 4,000 tug and towboats on the inland waterways transport 20-percent of the nation's coal and 60-percent of its grain each year in the more than 28,000 barges in active service. New England gets most of its heating oil, and the inland Pacific Northwest most of its diesel fuel by barge. The AWO says all this traffic contributes $5 billion a year to the US economy. Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers struggles to keep up with needed repairs to locks, dams, levees and other infrastructure necessary to carry this trade. What should be done to better maintain America’s inland waterways systems?

The answer to infrastructure maintenance, whether we’re talking about roadway, utilities, riparian avenues, or otherwise, lies simply in money management. Our economy is in terrible condition currently and I believe we’ve squandered our good fortune on wasteful and unnecessary spending. Like our homes, these vital systems require maintenance to ensure their longevity-- this means spending money to make repairs and upgrades when necessary and when possible. People who take pride in, and care for, their homes and vehicles understand the importance of preventative maintenance. Waiting for tragedy and reacting to it, is a poor substitute.

The $5 billion contributed to the US economy via these waterways represents one-tenth of the money our gov’t sends to foreign countries every year in aid. Cutting foreign aid to non-allies for two years would provide a huge boost to the economy if it were spent employing US contractors helping build America, rather than padding the governments of foreign nations to build… other countries.

Many American merchant mariners have found the TSA’s TWIC card program to be an onerous expense and pointless exercise that contributes little to America’s security, yet it is required by law. Do you favor repealing of the TWIC card requirement? What, if anything, should replace the program?

Peace is the only thing that can sufficiently replace our systems of security. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." Clearly, Mr. Franklin never fathomed having to engage religious zealot suicide bombers attacking innocent civilians while wearing civilian clothing as they walk freely through a nation paralyzed by political correctness.

As a person who travels occasionally on airplanes, I can tell you that I, personally, don't mind the TSA's efforts in that arena. Terrorism is a very real threat, but it doesn't seem like a threat that's often thwarted by policing our own citizens-- but is it?

The airline industry requires such security because it accommodates international passengers every day on many flights. I do not agree with the extent of the measures employed by some of its agents (let's face it, some people do not hold positions of authority with great humility). I do believe it's possible, however, that the transportation industry, in the eyes of terrorist organizations, has been removed from the list of easy targets thanks to the programs initiated by the TSA. Saying that the TWIC program contributes little to security is like saying we don't need to immunize our children against chicken pox because we haven't had an outbreak of chicken pox in years, so obviously, immunization is useless.

Our generation has the distinct displeasure of living within the time of our nation's history that experienced the attacks of 9/11. We are the unlucky few who have a basis for comparison between life before, and life after the attacks. We remember what it felt like to feel free from such horrors and to operate without onerous expenses and seemingly pointless exercises to conduct the same business we conducted with relative ease and prosperity little more than just a decade ago. The tragedy hits us twice for this reason. It truly is, for Americans, a different world now. To go back to living with ignorance and insecurity after having learned of our enemy's' will to penetrate into the heart of our country and sacrifice their own lives in the pursuit of executing thousands of innocent civilians would be, to put it simply, tragically stupid.

It is, ironically, the technological advancements of the transportation industry that allows our enemies to strike at us with their suicidal terror missions, and that industry, along with the rest of us, will share in some reasonable burden of ensuring the maximum degree of security possible at the cost of our stolen freedoms until such time as peace is achieved on Earth. In short, get comfortable-- kids have to wear helmets when they ride their bicycles too. We're adults. We should maintain a greater understanding of the big picture and do our best to comply with the necessary measures implemented to ensure our citizens' safety during these difficult times.

If a better system is developed, it should absolutely be discussed and implemented if it handles these issues at least as well as the current system does, while providing greater freedoms to our businesses and citizens as we live out our lives with some semblance of security and a minimal sacrifice of liberty.

With the US Coast Guard’s expanded security role following the 9/11 attacks, its resources for inspecting vessels and credentialing merchant mariners have been stretched thin. This has lead to safety concerns on one hand, and a sense that the Coast Guard has become more heavy handed and adversarial with American mariners on the other. Should the Coast Guard continue to perform these functions? If so, how? If not, do you favor transferring those functions to another agency, creating a new agency, or privatizing those functions?

Unfortunately, this is the post-9/11 world we live in. The Coast Guard is the best equipped, funded, and organized entity on the planet to perform the duties of national security on the water. Given the ardor of some world leaders with their will to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of causing havoc on peaceful nations, and the capacity for large-scale catastrophe being delivered via freightliner, I believe it is essential to the protection of American lives, that the Coast Guard continue to perform its “expanded” duties regarding inspections and other tedious processes.

As for their resources wearing thin, it just so happens that I know a place where we can find some 30 million people looking for work right now.

I am adamantly opposed to creating new agencies. A new agency means more bureaucracy, more laws, more funding, more paperwork, and less productivity. I would much rather see a more competent, experienced, well-trained organization like the US Coast Guard reinforced to meet its goals, than to create another opportunity for government officials to make things more difficult than they need to be for everyone involved.

Nor do I like the idea of privatizing these functions-- there is way too much potential for fraud, bribery, and unnecessary animosity among private businesses. One of the few duties specifically described within the Constitution regarding powers of the federal government is the duty to protect America’s citizens from threats. Outsourcing this duty to private companies seems like too much potential for disaster.

Candidate Danny Woodring

Danny Woodring is a telecommunications and networking consultant based in Florida. He is a Vietnam-era US Army veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart. Woodring's entire campaign is Internet based because "I like most grass roots Americans live paycheck to paycheck." Find his website at http://www.woodring2012.com/

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year, President Obama called for expanded exploration and drilling on the US's continental shelf. But, following the explosion, the Administration placed a temporary ban on drilling. Did you support the President's call for increased exploration at the time? What, if anything, would you have done differently than the President in response to the spill?

I am against deep water drilling for the simple reason of the chances of an issue like the Deep Horizon leak which economically devastated the Gulf Coast and will impact the Gulf for years to come. The companies that participated in constructing and operating the well did not have the foresight to develop the technology to cope with such a spill and they scrambled for answers including the Government once they were faced with the disaster . This is unacceptable and was driven by greed. As usual the government also failed to react and did not have the answers nor did the participate to the level they should have to get it resolved.

During the Deepwater Horizon incident, many in Washington and elsewhere blamed the Jones Act for slowing down the disaster response. Do you agree with this? Where do you stand on the Jones Act and various attempts to reform it?

I will approach it with common sense and set into motion reforms to eliminate any future restraints.

The US Navy currently operates more than 280 vessels. Should the current fleet be expanded, kept the same size, or reduced? Should Navy shipbuilding contracts always go to the lowest bidder, or should US shipyards be given preference?

The fleet should be expanded and all contracts awarded WILL BE AMERICAN ship building companies by my mandate. It is time we take care of our own and get our house in order. Please do not think I am a separatist but it is high time AMERICA takes back its ownership of our future.

The American Waterways Operators estimates that the nearly 4,000 tug and towboats on the inland waterways transport 20-percent of the nation's coal and 60-percent of its grain each year in the more than 28,000 barges in active service. New England gets most of its heating oil, and the inland Pacific Northwest most of its diesel fuel by barge. The AWO says all this traffic contributes $5 billion a year to the US economy. Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers struggles to keep up with needed repairs to locks, dams, levees and other infrastructure necessary to carry this trade. What should be done to better maintain America's inland waterways systems?

Americas waterways are an important aspect of our nations infrastructure just like our highways and bridges. The Corps are spread too thin and grossly under  funded. The levee systems along our rivers are in bad need of repair as well as our lock systems. We need to modernize and upgrade all of our infrastructure and in doing so bolster the Corps manpower and authority.

Many American merchant mariners have found the TSA's TWIC card program to be an onerous expense and pointless exercise that contributes little to America's security, yet it is required by law. Do you favor repealing of the TWIC card requirement? What, if anything, should replace the program?

The TSA needs its wings trimmed it is out of control and yes I would repeal and look at other solutions.

With the US Coast Guard's expanded security role following the 9/11 attacks, its resources for inspecting vessels and credentialing merchant mariners have been stretched thin. This has lead to safety concerns on one hand, and a sense that the Coast Guard has become more heavy handed and adversarial with American mariners on the other. Should the Coast Guard continue to perform these functions? If so, how? If not, do you favor transferring those functions to another agency, creating a new agency, or privatizing those functions?

First I would take its control away from the treasury department and incorporate it as part of the US Navy. The Coast Guard it a very important part of our national security and given the priority of adding manpower, technology and ships to cope with the growing marine threat. The privatization of the Coast Guard or any military organization just invites more corruption and I would not support it.

Monday Morning Mariner: Who To Vote For

http://thewackydeli.com/

Following my August 15 post, I compiled some questions for the US presidential candidates regarding maritime issues. The truth is, I didn't get much of a response. I emailed the questions to every declared candidate I could find except for Socialist Stewart Alexander: all of his links led back to the Socialist Party website. Messages sent to Libertarian candidate R. Lee Wrights received only "Message Undeliverable" responses.

President Obama's campaign responded with an automatic message that said "We're just getting set up and are receiving a lot of questions and comments...we will do our best to get back to you as soon as we can." Republican Gary Johnson and Libertarian RJ Harris both put me on their emailing list, but did not answer my questions.

Not responding at all were Democrat Randall Terry, Libertarians Roger Gary and Carl Person, and Republicans Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Tom Miller, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Vern Wuensche.

Independent Danny Woodring and Republican Matt Snyder's answers to the questions below will be prtinted in the next couple of posts. Following that, I'll look at President Obama's rhetoric and record on maritime issues. Finally, I'll look at where the top Republican candidates stand on the issues, based on their previous statements and actions.

Here are the questions I asked each candidate except for President Obama, who I asked to explain his record and current thinking on each of the subjects addressed:

1. Prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year, President Obama called for expanded exploration and drilling on the US’s continental shelf. But, following the explosion, the Administration placed a temporary ban on drilling. Did you support the President’s call for increased exploration at the time? What, if anything, would you have done differently than the President in response to the spill?
2. During the Deepwater Horizon incident, many in Washington and elsewhere blamed the Jones Act for slowing down the disaster response. Do you agree with this? Where do you stand on the Jones Act and various attempts to reform it?
3. The US Navy currently operates more than 280 vessels. Should the current fleet be expanded, kept the same size, or reduced? Should Navy shipbuilding contracts always go to the lowest bidder, or should US shipyards be given preference?
4. The American Waterways Operators estimates that the nearly 4,000 tug and towboats on the inland waterways transport 20-percent of the nation's coal and 60-percent of its grain each year in the more than 28,000 barges in active service. New England gets most of its heating oil, and the inland Pacific Northwest most of its diesel fuel by barge. The AWO says all this traffic contributes $5 billion a year to the US economy. Meanwhile, the Army Corps of Engineers struggles to keep up with needed repairs to locks, dams, levees and other infrastructure necessary to carry this trade. What should be done to better maintain America’s inland waterways systems?
5. Many American merchant mariners have found the TSA’s TWIC card program to be an onerous expense and pointless exercise that contributes little to America’s security, yet it is required by law. Do you favor repealing of the TWIC card requirement? What, if anything, should replace the program?
6. With the US Coast Guard’s expanded security role following the 9/11 attacks, its resources for inspecting vessels and credentialing merchant mariners have been stretched thin. This has lead to safety concerns on one hand, and a sense that the Coast Guard has become more heavy handed and adversarial with American mariners on the other. Should the Coast Guard continue to perform these functions? If so, how? If not, do you favor transferring those functions to another agency, creating a new agency, or privatizing those functions?

Avast! Ahoy!

We were passing another ship on the Columbia River. The crew was out on deck waving at their friends on the other vessel, the passengers were out on deck because there wasn't much else going on at that moment. I stepped out on the wing station of the bridge and gave my own wave. A passenger standing nearby looked at me and asked "Aren't you supposed to say 'Avast, ahoy,' or something like that?" I have a standard answer for questions like that: "We don't do that any more." The poor guy: he actually looked a little disappointed.

Like much else in the maritime field, terminology has changed over the years (and decades and centuries). And many terms that are commonly used are misunderstood, even by folks in the industry. Avast, for instance, simply means "stop" and has commonly been replaced by "stop" (although it is still used in some specific technical contexts, like distress signals). Ahoy is a way to get someone's attention, like calling "hello" or "hey, you." Even the Coast Guard doesn't use it anymore, preferring "hello" on its all-station radio announcements.

The term aweigh as in "anchor's aweigh" is another commonly misunderstood word, perhaps because it sounds like "away." An anchor that is "aweigh" is one that is hanging just off the bottom, usually when the anchor is being pulled back on board a vessel.

bulwark

A commonly misused term among mariners is gangway, which refers to the opening in bulwark or rail through which people can pass to and from the vessel. For many, "gangway" is shorthand for the ramp or ladder that allows access to that opening. Speaking of which, gangplank is another obsolete term. Large vessels will use a ramp made of metal or sometimes wood, or an accommodation ladder, a fold up stairway. Yachts may use a similar, smaller version called a passerelle.

Many of the old-fashioned terms falling out of use date to the Age of Sail, but new terms come in as the technology aboard ships changes. Except for the few tall ships still afloat, most ships have dispensed with the term sailing master, but many have an ETO or electronics technology officer.

In 1867 Admiral William Henry Smyth published an interesting collection of nautical terms called The Sailor's Word Book: An Alphabetical Of Nautical Terms including some more especially military or scientific but useful to seamen as well as archaisms of early voyagers etc. Find it here at Google Books.

The website Ports and Ships: Shipping and Harbour News Out of Africa has an excellent online glossary of currently-used nautical terms here.

SOLAS

Titanic's lifeboats

The years immediately following the release of the 1997 movie Titanic were interesting if you worked on a cruise ship. A couple of people were arrested for standing on the bow of large cruise ships and yelling "I'm king of the world." Others had to be chased out of lower deck areas, usually crew quarters, because they thought all the really fun parties were in "steerage." And there were a lot of questions about life boats; people were really concerned about there being enough room in the life boats.

The sinking of the Titanic in 1912 led to public outcry for tougher safety standards on merchant ships, and two years later the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) went into effect. Then new treaty required sufficient life boat space for all passengers and crew, mandated certain safety equipment, and required a continuous radio watch on all vessels. The treaty changed and expanded over succeeding decades, then underwent a major overhaul that went into effect on November 1, 1974. A form of that treaty is still in effect today, nearly a century after the Titanic disaster.

Among the requirements of the SOLAS '74 treaty:

• All ships must be built to keep them afloat, even if one watertight compartment might be flooded
• Specific provisions for fire fighting equipment, life boats, life jackets, and other "life-saving appliances"
• "Carriage requirements" for equipment compatible with the Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS)
• Cargo carrying rules, including those for dangerous cargos
• Security procedures
• Various rules for nuclear-powered vessels, bulk carriers, and high-speed craft

The treaty mainly applies to merchant vessels not recreational vessels, yachts, or military craft. One section, Chapter V, applies to all vessels. In addition to setting forth requirements for the proper manning and equipping of all vessels, the treaty obligates ship captains to go to the aid of other vessels in distress

The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provideassistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distressat sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possibleinforming them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so.

For more on the SOLAS Treaty, see the International Maritime Organization's SOLAS page.