Post by petedabroker on Oct 23, 2008 8:10:00 GMT -5
The following is an email sent to the FMC. on 23rd of Oct.
I have viewed you next scheduled meeting, Oct 29th, listing the topics of discussion.
I see you are reviewing something related to the California Portal problems once again, in closed session.
The topic looks like it will concentrate on the pollution aspects of the ports and certain groups related to pollution. I really do not believe this is in the best interest of the FMC. Its certainly not part of your mission statement , nor do I believe your authority, expertise, or concerns. It almost makes this problem acceptable to review related to the pollution aspect. Unless I am totally wrong here, you are sort of validating a pollution problem. This problem was never about pollution. It was about the total destruction of one work force , trying for personal gains of another work force to become their private territory.
I believe this only diverts your efforts. It dilutes the very reason that was determined as being against the Shipping Act. It plays directly into the hands of those ports, their partners, and does little to shed light onto the real problem there.
If there is a pollution problem, there were many other alternatives and directions they could of undertaken to solve that problem. Regardless, it is not the concern of the FMC to either object or validate. This is directly what California wants to see. Its sort of appeasing Ms. Feinstein's letter, which was certainly inappropriate, helped to divert the real issue, and very much a strong arm attempt to bully the FMC into submissions. She has no expertise in shipping matters, and basically only can determine about pollution because the air smells funny. She shoots blanks, just like every other politician in California, believing that one nasty letter , should make everyone fall into submission. Personally and if I was in charge of the FMC, Ms. Feinstein would of found an immediate response , well founded, and to the point , on her desk the very next morning.
Regardless, concentrate on the aspects of this problem , as they are related to the FMC jurisdictions. Other than that, it only adds to confusions, and diversions of conclusions. Stay focused on the real issues here. Its certainly not about pollution.
Kindest of Regards, and thanks for all the efforts to make this matter clear to all concerns,
Peter Creager III
I have viewed you next scheduled meeting, Oct 29th, listing the topics of discussion.
I see you are reviewing something related to the California Portal problems once again, in closed session.
The topic looks like it will concentrate on the pollution aspects of the ports and certain groups related to pollution. I really do not believe this is in the best interest of the FMC. Its certainly not part of your mission statement , nor do I believe your authority, expertise, or concerns. It almost makes this problem acceptable to review related to the pollution aspect. Unless I am totally wrong here, you are sort of validating a pollution problem. This problem was never about pollution. It was about the total destruction of one work force , trying for personal gains of another work force to become their private territory.
I believe this only diverts your efforts. It dilutes the very reason that was determined as being against the Shipping Act. It plays directly into the hands of those ports, their partners, and does little to shed light onto the real problem there.
If there is a pollution problem, there were many other alternatives and directions they could of undertaken to solve that problem. Regardless, it is not the concern of the FMC to either object or validate. This is directly what California wants to see. Its sort of appeasing Ms. Feinstein's letter, which was certainly inappropriate, helped to divert the real issue, and very much a strong arm attempt to bully the FMC into submissions. She has no expertise in shipping matters, and basically only can determine about pollution because the air smells funny. She shoots blanks, just like every other politician in California, believing that one nasty letter , should make everyone fall into submission. Personally and if I was in charge of the FMC, Ms. Feinstein would of found an immediate response , well founded, and to the point , on her desk the very next morning.
Regardless, concentrate on the aspects of this problem , as they are related to the FMC jurisdictions. Other than that, it only adds to confusions, and diversions of conclusions. Stay focused on the real issues here. Its certainly not about pollution.
Kindest of Regards, and thanks for all the efforts to make this matter clear to all concerns,
Peter Creager III