If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Ship not allowed to deliver 40,000 tons of much needed road salt to New Jersey because A) The ship can't dock because of the weather, B) Nobody will unload it because of a dock worker strike, or C) The ship isn't carrying an American flag   (nydailynews.com) divider line 135
    More: Stupid, New Jersey, road salt, car drivers, U.S. flag, Egg Harbor Township  
•       •       •

9800 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2014 at 5:31 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-18 10:33:32 AM

LZeitgeist: Fissile: LZeitgeist: cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.

Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

[boourns.dynu.net image 318x200]

Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?

Didn't read the story, huh? The ship IS docked at a US port....up in Maine.  If the ship had sailed directly for Port Newark, there would be no problem.  The problem is that the ship stopped at a port up in Maine first.   Now that salt has to be unloaded in Maine and placed on US flagged ships or rail cars to get it down to Jersey.

Oh, and Drudge is a blaming this law on Obama.  Apparently Barry got into his time machine again and went back to 1920 so he could fark with Christie.

Yes, I did read the story, but admittedly I missed that it was already in Maine. Consider crow being eaten.

This begs the question - why the Hell would they load it on a foreign ship in Maine to ship to another US state?


That's what I'm wondering. Even the master of that foreign-flagged ship would have known that was a no-no.
 
2014-02-18 10:46:05 AM

lifeboat: LZeitgeist: Fissile: LZeitgeist: cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.

Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

[boourns.dynu.net image 318x200]

Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?

Didn't read the story, huh? The ship IS docked at a US port....up in Maine.  If the ship had sailed directly for Port Newark, there would be no problem.  The problem is that the ship stopped at a port up in Maine first.   Now that salt has to be unloaded in Maine and placed on US flagged ships or rail cars to get it down to Jersey.

Oh, and Drudge is a blaming this law on Obama.  Apparently Barry got into his time machine again and went back to 1920 so he could fark with Christie.

Yes, I did read the story, but admittedly I missed that it was already in Maine. Consider crow being eaten.

This begs the question - why the Hell would they load it on a foreign ship in Maine to ship to another US state?

That's what I'm wondering. Even the master of that foreign-flagged ship would have known that was a no-no.


The story is not well written.  I assume that the salt is of foreign origin.   The salt supply company probably made sales both to Maine and New Jersey.  The ship made its first stop in Maine.   I'm gonna guess that the rules require the entire cargo to be off-loaded in Maine, which means salt will need to be sent down to Jersey on barges or rail.
 
2014-02-18 10:59:38 AM
Chris Christie causing one traffic jam for a couple hours: HUGE SCANDAL.  POLITICAL PAYBACK.

Obama's DHS refusing to grant a waiver to a ship to deliver salt to New Jersey, where it is desperately needed for icy roads leaving motorists stranded for weeks: nothing to see here, move along now.

It couldn't possibly be political retaliation to a republican governor.
 
2014-02-18 11:00:38 AM

Fissile: lifeboat: LZeitgeist: Fissile: LZeitgeist: cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.

Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

[boourns.dynu.net image 318x200]

Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?

Didn't read the story, huh? The ship IS docked at a US port....up in Maine.  If the ship had sailed directly for Port Newark, there would be no problem.  The problem is that the ship stopped at a port up in Maine first.   Now that salt has to be unloaded in Maine and placed on US flagged ships or rail cars to get it down to Jersey.

Oh, and Drudge is a blaming this law on Obama.  Apparently Barry got into his time machine again and went back to 1920 so he could fark with Christie.

Yes, I did read the story, but admittedly I missed that it was already in Maine. Consider crow being eaten.

This begs the question - why the Hell would they load it on a foreign ship in Maine to ship to another US state?

That's what I'm wondering. Even the master of that foreign-flagged ship would have known that was a no-no.

The story is not well written.  I assume that the salt is of foreign origin.   The salt supply company probably made sales both to Maine and New Jersey.  The ship made its first stop in Maine.   I'm gonna guess that the rules require the entire cargo to be off-loaded in Maine, which means salt will need to be sent down to Jersey on barges or rail.


A poorly written story that leaves out details causing people to get their panties in a bunch, with a load of butt hurt, it must be a day ending in "Y"
 
2014-02-18 11:03:45 AM

SlothB77: Chris Christie causing one traffic jam for a couple hours: HUGE SCANDAL.  POLITICAL PAYBACK.

Obama's DHS refusing to grant a waiver to a ship to deliver salt to New Jersey, where it is desperately needed for icy roads leaving motorists stranded for weeks: nothing to see here, move along now.

It couldn't possibly be political retaliation to a republican governor.


So now executive orders and waivers are a good thing to you? I thought the usurper Obama was a dictator according to you when he did that for other things.
 
2014-02-18 11:09:07 AM

dahmers love zombie: Any other situation: "OMG SOCIALEST OBAMA LETTIN NOT US-FLAGGED SHIPPS DELIVER WEFARE BABY SUPPLIES TO DEMOCRATIC STATE PORTS!  MIGHT AS WELL OPEN DOORS FOR DIRTY MUSLIMTERRRSTS

Because it's directly affecting middle and uppper-middle class white people:   OMG OBAMA WON"T  ISSUE A SIMPLE WAIVER BREAKING A US FEDERAL LAW.  WHY WON'T HE BREAK A FEDERAL LAW SO WE CAN HAVE SALT?

Fark 'em.  Six years of constantBS about every little thing he does or doesn't do.  I say -- abide by the absolute letter of the law.  Screw 'em, R OR D.


Anyone else annoyed that the politics tab is leaking?
 
2014-02-18 11:24:20 AM

LZeitgeist: Fissile: LZeitgeist: cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.

Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

[boourns.dynu.net image 318x200]

Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?

Didn't read the story, huh? The ship IS docked at a US port....up in Maine.  If the ship had sailed directly for Port Newark, there would be no problem.  The problem is that the ship stopped at a port up in Maine first.   Now that salt has to be unloaded in Maine and placed on US flagged ships or rail cars to get it down to Jersey.

Oh, and Drudge is a blaming this law on Obama.  Apparently Barry got into his time machine again and went back to 1920 so he could fark with Christie.

Yes, I did read the story, but admittedly I missed that it was already in Maine. Consider crow being eaten.

This begs the question - why the Hell would they load it on a foreign ship in Maine to ship to another US state?


Because:

1)  A US Flagged Vessel was not available.
2)  The captain or company operating the foreign ship was and saw an opportunity.
3)  Everyone assumed on the front end that a waiver would be granted.
4)  And when the deal was struck, they didn't include the additional costs of running to Canada first to make it a legal route.
5)  They probably could have shipped it by rail or truck, but that would have been more costly most likely.
 
2014-02-18 11:28:54 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: State Department of Transportation Spokesman Joe Dee said Monday the department has applied for a waiver from the federal government but it appears unlikely it will be granted, We were pursuing a waiver, but we've been advised we wouldn't get one," Dee said. " It seems unlikely we will get it."

"I've got a pen and I've got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward,"

[charlestonteaparty.org image 239x300]


So do you think State Department of Transportation waivers go directly to the president for approval, or just that they should? I'm sure the president has nothing better to do than look at waiver requests from each state's department of transportation.
 
2014-02-18 11:32:04 AM

Fissile: Oh, and Drudge is a blaming this law on Obama. Apparently Barry got into his time machine again and went back to 1920 so he could fark with Christie.


He could grant a waiver or exception, you know.  Like he seems to do every other week for another, recent, high profile law.
 
2014-02-18 11:33:31 AM

Erebus51: Unobtanium: mamoru: So... if they really can't/won't break this law, can't someone simply run a flag out to the ship real quick and solve the problem? Or are conditions too bad for other boats and/or helicopters to do so?

That would also be illegal, I would guess.

The issue at hand, at least in part, is one of cabotage.(pops to Wiki). We don't allow foreign airlines, trucks, or ships to pick up and deliver the same cargo within the U.S.

In this case, I don't know enough about the inventory of ships in the U.S. Merchant fleet to know if a suitable cargo ship was even available.

Very likely not. Probably would have been better trying to find some barges instead.



I can't stand it.  I know you planned it.  I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate.  So while you sit back and wonder why, I got this f---ing thorn in my side.

Oh my, it's a mirage.  I'm tellin' y'all it's cabotage.
 
2014-02-18 11:34:15 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Unobtanium

The issue at hand, at least in part, is one of cabotage


[www.nerdyandhip.com image 370x231]


Damn you.
 
2014-02-18 11:36:23 AM
www.powerlineblog.com

Once again, Republicans reach across the aisle and reap the spoils.
 
2014-02-18 11:37:30 AM

waltpeter: This is not the first time it has snowed in NJ. This is not the first time the roads have iced over. This is simply poor planning on NJ's side, nothing more, nothing less. One day Common Sense will return to the US, however some of us will not be here to see it.


PunGent: I dunno about NJ, but the snowfall here in Mass. isn't much above historic annual levels, if at all.

Piss-poor state planning isn't really an 'emergency' in my book, despite hysterical media coverage of what I call "weather."

/shakes belt-onion menacingly


Considering that NJ has already had more than double it's average annual snowfall already this winter, both of you may want to restrict your comments to subjects that you actually know something about...
 
2014-02-18 11:38:21 AM

meanmutton: dahmers love zombie: Any other situation: "OMG SOCIALEST OBAMA LETTIN NOT US-FLAGGED SHIPPS DELIVER WEFARE BABY SUPPLIES TO DEMOCRATIC STATE PORTS!  MIGHT AS WELL OPEN DOORS FOR DIRTY MUSLIMTERRRSTS

Because it's directly affecting middle and uppper-middle class white people:   OMG OBAMA WON"T  ISSUE A SIMPLE WAIVER BREAKING A US FEDERAL LAW.  WHY WON'T HE BREAK A FEDERAL LAW SO WE CAN HAVE SALT?

Fark 'em.  Six years of constantBS about every little thing he does or doesn't do.  I say -- abide by the absolute letter of the law.  Screw 'em, R OR D.

Anyone else annoyed that the politics tab is leaking?


Yes.
 
2014-02-18 11:43:42 AM

SlothB77: [www.powerlineblog.com image 414x500]

Once again, Republicans reach across the aisle and reap the spoils.


img.fark.net

Christie's pants could literally house an entire family displaced by Hurricane Sandy.
 
2014-02-18 11:50:14 AM
cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.
Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

LZeitgeist:
Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?


You mean like the US port it's in (Searsport, Maine), because it can't leave for the other port in NJ?

That port? Or is it the only port in the US without rail connections? (Hint: yes, there's a rail line right there)
 
2014-02-18 11:56:13 AM
CheekyMonkey:
Considering that NJ has already had more than double it's average annual snowfall already this winter,

...the New Jersey authorities should have made some arrangements a couple of months ago, and shouldn't have waited for a shipment to come in the week before a storm.

"Holy, crap, it sure is snowing a lot! We're going to run out if it keeps up!"

"Well, we'll get some more. It's just salt, right? I mean, a lot of folks keep tens of millions of pounds of road salt sitting around, just waiting to ship it to people who need it at the last minute. Right? It's not like there's going to be shipping issues for 40,000 tons of salt."
 
2014-02-18 11:56:53 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Zeb Hesselgresser: State Department of Transportation Spokesman Joe Dee said Monday the department has applied for a waiver from the federal government but it appears unlikely it will be granted, We were pursuing a waiver, but we've been advised we wouldn't get one," Dee said. " It seems unlikely we will get it."

"I've got a pen and I've got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward,"

[charlestonteaparty.org image 239x300]

So do you think State Department of Transportation waivers go directly to the president for approval, or just that they should? I'm sure the president has nothing better to do than look at waiver requests from each state's department of transportation.


www.golflifestyleblog.com
 
2014-02-18 12:08:05 PM

SomeAmerican: The problem with this narrative is that US manufacturing never declined.  That's a myth, caused by two factors.  First, we became far more efficient post WW2, so less jobs were needed to produce the same value of goods.  Second, we had massive growth in other sectors, so if you look at manufacturing as a % of GDP it appears to shrink, but that's only because it wasn't growing as fast.  If you look at manufacturing in real dollars you can see that the sector has grown at a steady rate over the last century.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 683x378]

Measured in dollars, we produce more than any other country in the world, except for China which recently passed us.  However, to produce the same amount of goods that we do, China uses over 100 million laborers, meaning our factories are over 8x as efficient.  As labor costs equalize, they will be faced with a) modernizing their plants and b) finding jobs for 90 million people, so it isn't all roses over there.

Point being, US has been and remains a powerful force in manufacturing.


When people talk about the decline of the US manufacturing segment they're talking about the number of manufacturing jobs not the productivity of the remaining jobs. No one disputes that productivity in virtually every part of the economy has risen dramatically over the last few decades. This is what they're talking about:



i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-18 12:37:12 PM

Public Savant: I think there might be a valid reason for all this.
Salt can be hard to distinguish from other chemicals.

[img.fark.net image 244x182]

[img.fark.net image 244x206]

One is salt, the other is Ammonium Nitrate.

One kills many Americans each year, the other is used for explosives.


Supposedly safe table salt is a stable form of two substances that can be highly dangerous.  One was used as a lethal chemical weapon, the other is explosive when contacting water.  Why the government refuses to regulate this highly dangerous compound is another testament to the stupidity of our government.
 
2014-02-18 12:52:37 PM
Go to store
Buy US Flag
Get  row boat
Row out to ship
Hand them flag
 
2014-02-18 01:04:19 PM

SomeAmerican: UNC_Samurai: There was a time when the American merchant marine was second to none.  Even at the height of Pax Britannica at the end of the 19th century, the world's shipping was just as robust under the Stars and Stripes as the Union Jack.  But things changed in the late 20th century.  American merchant shipping declined significantly in the 1970s and 1980s, at the same time as the rest of American manufacturing started to disappear.

The problem with this narrative is that US manufacturing never declined.  That's a myth, caused by two factors.  First, we became far more efficient post WW2, so less jobs were needed to produce the same value of goods.  Second, we had massive growth in other sectors, so if you look at manufacturing as a % of GDP it appears to shrink, but that's only because it wasn't growing as fast.  If you look at manufacturing in real dollars you can see that the sector has grown at a steady rate over the last century.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 683x378]

Measured in dollars, we produce more than any other country in the world, except for China which recently passed us.  However, to produce the same amount of goods that we do, China uses over 100 million laborers, meaning our factories are over 8x as efficient.  As labor costs equalize, they will be faced with a) modernizing their plants and b) finding jobs for 90 million people, so it isn't all roses over there.

Point being, US has been and remains a powerful force in manufacturing.


"...However, to produce the same amount of goods that we do, China uses over 100 million laborers, meaning our factories are over 8x as efficient..."

When you say "amount" you are not talking about tons of goods, or # of goods, but the value of the goods.  US manufacturing is more efficient, but not 8x as efficient.  Much of the difference is because the US focuses generally on high-value goods in smaller quantities, while China currently produces high volumes of relatively low-value goods.  It isn't really a good comparison.

When China starts exporting large numbers of gas turbines, airplanes, and quality (original) intellectual property, then I will be worried.  That could change but given the culture there of "steal IP, make copies", I am not worried yet*.

*Japan had a similar culture of "license IP, make copies, improve them and then destroy the original licensor" but that is a bit different from what generally comes out of China.
 
2014-02-18 01:07:24 PM

dj245: SomeAmerican: UNC_Samurai: There was a time when the American merchant marine was second to none.  Even at the height of Pax Britannica at the end of the 19th century, the world's shipping was just as robust under the Stars and Stripes as the Union Jack.  But things changed in the late 20th century.  American merchant shipping declined significantly in the 1970s and 1980s, at the same time as the rest of American manufacturing started to disappear.

The problem with this narrative is that US manufacturing never declined.  That's a myth, caused by two factors.  First, we became far more efficient post WW2, so less jobs were needed to produce the same value of goods.  Second, we had massive growth in other sectors, so if you look at manufacturing as a % of GDP it appears to shrink, but that's only because it wasn't growing as fast.  If you look at manufacturing in real dollars you can see that the sector has grown at a steady rate over the last century.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 683x378]

Measured in dollars, we produce more than any other country in the world, except for China which recently passed us.  However, to produce the same amount of goods that we do, China uses over 100 million laborers, meaning our factories are over 8x as efficient.  As labor costs equalize, they will be faced with a) modernizing their plants and b) finding jobs for 90 million people, so it isn't all roses over there.

Point being, US has been and remains a powerful force in manufacturing.

"...However, to produce the same amount of goods that we do, China uses over 100 million laborers, meaning our factories are over 8x as efficient..."

When you say "amount" you are not talking about tons of goods, or # of goods, but the value of the goods.  US manufacturing is more efficient, but not 8x as efficient.  Much of the difference is because the US focuses generally on high-value goods in smaller quantities, while China currently produces high volumes of relatively low-value goods. ...


That's a viable strategy. Let someone else finance the R&D and coast off their achievements. Kind of like drafting in NASCAR.
 
2014-02-18 01:10:39 PM

MechaPyx: dj245: SomeAmerican: UNC_Samurai: There was a time when the American merchant marine was second to none.  Even at the height of Pax Britannica at the end of the 19th century, the world's shipping was just as robust under the Stars and Stripes as the Union Jack.  But things changed in the late 20th century.  American merchant shipping declined significantly in the 1970s and 1980s, at the same time as the rest of American manufacturing started to disappear.

The problem with this narrative is that US manufacturing never declined.  That's a myth, caused by two factors.  First, we became far more efficient post WW2, so less jobs were needed to produce the same value of goods.  Second, we had massive growth in other sectors, so if you look at manufacturing as a % of GDP it appears to shrink, but that's only because it wasn't growing as fast.  If you look at manufacturing in real dollars you can see that the sector has grown at a steady rate over the last century.
......

When you say "amount" you are not talking about tons of goods, or # of goods, but the value of the goods.  US manufacturing is more efficient, but not 8x as efficient.  Much of the difference is because the US focuses generally on high-value goods in smaller quantities, while China currently produces high volumes of relatively low-value goods. ...

That's a viable strategy. Let someone else finance the R&D and coast off their achievements. Kind of like drafting in NASCAR.


Especially if you can lobby congress with disinformation to weaken the patent laws of the US, by calling everyone who asserts a patent a "troll".
 
2014-02-18 01:37:55 PM

cirby: cirby: If it's needed that much, offload and ship by railroad.
Four hundred hopper cars at 100 tons each. Break it into two or three separate trains, send them to different parts of the state (which they were probably going to do at the Jersey docks anyway).

LZeitgeist:
Um... seems like they'd have to dock the ship somewhere before they could do that.

Or does your plan include building a railroad out to the ship, since it can't dock at a US dock? Or sailing the ship to a foreign dock and shipping by rail from there? All before the next storm comes in on Tuesday?

You mean like the US port it's in (Searsport, Maine), because it can't leave for the other port in NJ?

That port? Or is it the only port in the US without rail connections? (Hint: yes, there's a rail line right there)


Yeah, I got that later - sorry. I don't know how I missed it when I read it.
 
2014-02-18 01:40:22 PM

PunGent: way south: PunGent: way south: I'm fairly certain the author is confused about the flag thing, but just in a case they aren't...Most times when things get held up over little known outdated laws, its not really about the law. It's about someone forgetting to grease the appropriate palm or someone trying to pull a political favor.

I'm sure there's corruption in the shipping/hauling industries, but this isn't exactly a "little known outdated law"; this is more like manslaughter or something; EVERYONE in maritime shipping knows this one, and not just Americans.

NJ state officials, however?  Yeah, they could be that stupid.

Well, not "everyone" knew.
Otherwise they wouldn't have shipped the stuff on an improperly flagged vessel.

/But it should've taken thirty seconds to explain this and get a waiver.
/Not like there's a national emergency or anything about a snowpocalipse that's been on the news.

I dunno about NJ, but the snowfall here in Mass. isn't much above historic annual levels, if at all.

Piss-poor state planning isn't really an 'emergency' in my book, despite hysterical media coverage of what I call "weather."

/shakes belt-onion menacingly


Obviously annual and current season snow fall will vary for your location, but average seasonal snow for Boston is around 46 inches. Depending on when you read this, there's been 55 inches so far this season, likely hit closer to 60 by the end of the day.

Not historic (yet) but certainly above average.

For central NJ, average is around 28 inches for the whole season, and they're over 55 inches so far.

For Philly, average is around 26, and they are also over 55 as of last night. Don't know what if any snow they get today.

So the need for salt this season has been more than "average demand plus a bit for some cushion."
 
2014-02-18 02:03:08 PM

TheGreatGazoo: Can't they just go up to Canada, unload a bag of salt, and then come back down?


This is the standard approach, and everyone involved knows it. Either fly a US flag or stop overseas. It's why cruise ships that go up or down the US coast have a stop in Canada or Mexico.

My guess is that someone involved in the process is trying to use the salt shortage as an excuse for political grandstanding.
 
2014-02-18 02:15:58 PM
The last high-profile exemption to the Jones act that I can remember was for foreign built oil spill recovery vessels hired by BP to conduct oil removal in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil spill, and even that took a lot of pressure to get. Jones act waivers are very rare.

It's a tough issue. If you live in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, or Alaska it seriously jacks up the cost of everything that comes from the mainland vs the cost of a foreign shipper. However, without the Jones act every single shipbuilder in the country except for Electronic Boat and Newport News would go out of business overnight. In the long run, I think it is important enough to have at least some semblance of an American merchant marine, so I support the Jones act, even when it results in absurdities like these.
 
2014-02-18 02:59:38 PM
If they did get a waiver, how long would it take for the longshoremen to unload that ship when it is taking union jobs away?
 
2014-02-18 03:31:54 PM

mbillips: gfid: mamoru: Fubini: mamoru: So... if they really can't/won't break this law, can't someone simply run a flag out to the ship real quick and solve the problem? Or are conditions too bad for other boats and/or helicopters to do so?

The writer has almost certainly confused flying a physical flag with the notion of a ship's flag state- the country under which a ship is registered, licensed, and regulated.

This is more likely a regulatory dispute over the ship or it's cargo not being up to US standards.

Ah... that makes so much more sense. I'm not really clued-in to maritime laws.

But, you gotta admit it would be a much more Fark-worthy story if the whole situation could be resolved by someone simply dropping an American flag off on the boat. ;)

I wonder if it's that simple.  Can you temporarily re-flag a ship to fly under another country's flag without stepping on other maritime laws?  I don't think it's the actual physical flag they're talking about.

Imagine if ship's could just literally make it a "flag of convenience."   If the Captain wants special treatment when docking in the UK, he simply hoists their flag up.  When the ship returns to US waters, raise the US flag.  Somehow, I don't think that would conform to maritime law, but I'm certainly not an expert.

Just give them the goddammed waiver.

U.S.-flagged ships have TONS of awesome labor laws they have to abide by. Being a U.S. merchant marine sailor, working on U.S.-flagged ships, you make a ton of money. The same is true in Europe and Japan. Because of this, first-world shipping companies register their ships in bogus flag-of-convenience countries like Panama and Liberia, so they can pay Filipino and Bangladeshi crews one-tenth of what they would have to pay German or American crews, and where there is basically zero regulation. So, no, you can't just change your registration on the fly; you'd be in violation of about a million safety and labor regulations if you did.

/If it were up to me, U.S. shipp ...


Hey man, you realize all the coast-wise trade has transformed to tug and barge, right? We still ship plenty of stuff up and down the coasts, but almost all of it is in barges now. The shipping companies get to set crew levels by the size of the tug instead of length overall, plus there's waaaaaaaaay more flexibility. Engine problems? Swap in a new tug. Run aground? Lighter to another barge and fix the hull damage without losing revenue time for the crew. Weather problems? Change your tow configuration to suit. Plus there's a bit more flexibility in scheduling. I know of more than one company that brings loaded barges to the terminal, leaves them there, and takes the empty barges from last trip back to get loaded. You can't do that with a traditional ship - the cargo section is physically tied to the propulsion. The really nice thing for the crews is that it often turns into a route where they are home far more often than would have happened in the old days. No more checking out for months at a stretch, plenty of guys are home every week.
 
2014-02-18 03:34:06 PM

CheekyMonkey: waltpeter: This is not the first time it has snowed in NJ. This is not the first time the roads have iced over. This is simply poor planning on NJ's side, nothing more, nothing less. One day Common Sense will return to the US, however some of us will not be here to see it.

PunGent: I dunno about NJ, but the snowfall here in Mass. isn't much above historic annual levels, if at all.

Piss-poor state planning isn't really an 'emergency' in my book, despite hysterical media coverage of what I call "weather."

/shakes belt-onion menacingly

Considering that NJ has already had more than double it's average annual snowfall already this winter, both of you may want to restrict your comments to subjects that you actually know something about...


Considering I posted "I dunno" you might want to read more carefully before snarking out of turn.

Also, CITATION NEEDED.
 
2014-02-18 03:34:31 PM

Jim_Callahan: My response was "well, get a waiver", but apparently they've already applied for one and are awaiting approval.

So the problem's actually already essentially solved, and the article is only written as it is because the author is  hilariously stupid and is taking "the flag the ship sails under" to mean a  literal piece of cloth attached to the ship somewhere.

// My five-year-old second cousin knows this one.  Did TFAuthor never have a pirates-vs-navy phase growing up?  Because most people pick up basic shiat like this about naval law from that.  Treasure Island and so on.


Well, I never knew about this until this article, but this is actually pretty interesting. I mean, it's sort of obvious ships have IDs of some kind, but I didn't know that ships would go  without them for some reason.

/Or that they were tied to flags
 
2014-02-18 03:43:34 PM

mcmnky: PunGent: way south: PunGent: way south: I'm fairly certain the author is confused about the flag thing, but just in a case they aren't...Most times when things get held up over little known outdated laws, its not really about the law. It's about someone forgetting to grease the appropriate palm or someone trying to pull a political favor.

I'm sure there's corruption in the shipping/hauling industries, but this isn't exactly a "little known outdated law"; this is more like manslaughter or something; EVERYONE in maritime shipping knows this one, and not just Americans.

NJ state officials, however?  Yeah, they could be that stupid.

Well, not "everyone" knew.
Otherwise they wouldn't have shipped the stuff on an improperly flagged vessel.

/But it should've taken thirty seconds to explain this and get a waiver.
/Not like there's a national emergency or anything about a snowpocalipse that's been on the news.

I dunno about NJ, but the snowfall here in Mass. isn't much above historic annual levels, if at all.

Piss-poor state planning isn't really an 'emergency' in my book, despite hysterical media coverage of what I call "weather."

/shakes belt-onion menacingly

Obviously annual and current season snow fall will vary for your location, but average seasonal snow for Boston is around 46 inches. Depending on when you read this, there's been 55 inches so far this season, likely hit closer to 60 by the end of the day.

Not historic (yet) but certainly above average.

For central NJ, average is around 28 inches for the whole season, and they're over 55 inches so far.

For Philly, average is around 26, and they are also over 55 as of last night. Don't know what if any snow they get today.

So the need for salt this season has been more than "average demand plus a bit for some cushion."


And neither Boston nor Philly is out of salt.  The white stuff didn't land all at once.  NJ could do this thing called "measuring the pile," where you estimate how fast you're using something.

It's a new technique, though, it's only been around since before the Pharaohs.

Otoh, NJ is definitely setting a record in snow REMOVAL costs, so...bets there's corruption involved?

Not ordinary corruption...not ordinary NJ corruption...but record-setting corruption?
 
2014-02-18 03:54:47 PM

PunGent: way south: PunGent: way south: I'm fairly certain the author is confused about the flag thing, but just in a case they aren't...Most times when things get held up over little known outdated laws, its not really about the law. It's about someone forgetting to grease the appropriate palm or someone trying to pull a political favor.

I'm sure there's corruption in the shipping/hauling industries, but this isn't exactly a "little known outdated law"; this is more like manslaughter or something; EVERYONE in maritime shipping knows this one, and not just Americans.

NJ state officials, however?  Yeah, they could be that stupid.

Well, not "everyone" knew.
Otherwise they wouldn't have shipped the stuff on an improperly flagged vessel.

/But it should've taken thirty seconds to explain this and get a waiver.
/Not like there's a national emergency or anything about a snowpocalipse that's been on the news.

I dunno about NJ, but the snowfall here in Mass. isn't much above historic annual levels, if at all.

Piss-poor state planning isn't really an 'emergency' in my book, despite hysterical media coverage of what I call "weather."

/shakes belt-onion menacingly


Its an emergency, but its sounding more like a manufactured one at this point.

The article makes it sound like the holdup was for want of a  $5 nylon flag rather than long registration laws.   Brings me back to the question of "who didn't know?".
You have to wonder if they didn't cause a problem just to argue a case for ignoring the law.
 
2014-02-18 06:52:13 PM

Fubini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

Wikipedia says that this law requires goods shipped between US ports be shipped on a US-flag vessel. I'm guessing this is most likely the problem, considering that the US produces a lot of salt.


Protectionist laws . . . Who you protecting now?
 
Displayed 35 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report