NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/25/mule.skinner.blues/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal anti-terror law that requires longshoremen, truckers and others to submit to criminal background checks has ensnared another class of transportation worker -- mule drivers.


Mule skinners must abide by federal law and apply for Transportation Worker Identification Credentials, TSA says.

Yes, so-called mule skinners -- in this case, seasonal workers who dress in colonial garb at a historical park in Easton, Pa. -- must apply for biometric Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC), according to the Transportation Security Administration, which says it is bound by federal law.

The requirement has officials of the Hugh Moore Historical Park perplexed.

"We have one boat. It's pulled by two mules. On a good day they might go 2 miles per hour," said Sarah B. Hays, the park's director of operations.

The park's two-mile canal does not pass any military bases, nuclear power plants or other sensitive facilities. And, park officials say, the mules could be considered weapons of mass destruction only if they were aimed at something resembling food.

There are some muleskinners over at the C&O Canal Park in Maryland as well.

I guess we have to look out for terrorists who somehow take control of a canal barge, and drive the mules and barge into something...

Those scumbags, using innocent donkeys as their weapons.

An ass in the wrong hands is now considered a weapon of mass destruction.

PHEW. just in time to protect us from the evil historical re-enactors.

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.

Those hypothetical bastards! How could they hypothetically be so cruel?!?

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.
darlin' the obama administration is less than 2 months old. you think that they hopped right on the "terrorist re-enactor" problem?

this policy was decided by bush appointees.

darlin' the obama administration is less than 2 months old. you think that they hopped right on the "terrorist re-enactor" problem?

this policy was decided by bush appointees.
Even then, it's a bureaucratic kind of thing. They write the regulation for transportation workers not probably realizing that mule skinners technically qualify as that (seriously, your writing the regulation do you think there was anyone in the room going, "What about mule skinners?") so they didn't write in a specific exemption for it. It's a quirk, nothing more, even if satan himself designed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/25/mule.skinner.blues/index.html



There are some muleskinners over at the C&O Canal Park in Maryland as well.

I guess we have to look out for terrorists who somehow take control of a canal barge, and drive the mules and barge into something...

So this was the change Obama was talking about.

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.

Neither I, nor reality, give a damn about your gambling problem.

Even then, it's a bureaucratic kind of thing. They write the regulation for transportation workers not probably realizing that mule skinners technically qualify as that (seriously, your writing the regulation do you think there was anyone in the room going, "What about mule skinners?") so they didn't write in a specific exemption for it. It's a quirk, nothing more, even if satan himself designed it.
its probably someone who hates muleskinners. how would it come to the attention of the park manager and who would make the effort to inform them? only someone who had a grudge and a way to hand out a little payback.

Neither I, nor reality, give a damn about your gambling problem.

What gambling problem? If Bush had done this, you would have (and rightly, I might add) been ranting and raving about this, OFTEN IN BIG CAPITALS, complaining about how these poor blokes have to be checked out in case they're terrorists.

What gambling problem? If Bush had done this, you would have (and rightly, I might add) been ranting and raving about this, OFTEN IN BIG CAPITALS, complaining about how these poor blokes have to be checked out in case they're terrorists.

This precise gambling problem.

This precise gambling problem.

So you don't have a problem with this then?

What gambling problem? If Bush had done this, you would have (and rightly, I might add) been ranting and raving about this, OFTEN IN BIG CAPITALS, complaining about how these poor blokes have to be checked out in case they're terrorists.

Yeah, H2, answer for your hypothetical acts!

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.

In December, Hayes wrote to Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, about the requirement. Dent, in turn, wrote to the TSA requesting a waiver, noting the mode of transportation involved was "mule-drawn canal boats."

In January, the TSA responded, noting the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 applies to all mariners holding U.S. Coast Guard-issued credentials.

"We encourage the crew members... who possess Coast Guard mariner credentials to obtain a TWIC at their earliest convenience to comply with these requirements and not risk suspension or revocation of their other credentials," the TSA wrote.

Newsflash: It did happen during the Bush years.

Yeah, H2, answer for your hypothetical acts!

http://www.pikesoft.com/blog/media/2/20060727-minority_report_gestural_ui.jpg

Newsflash: It did happen during the Bush years.

Was it only announced then or what, because the article makes it seem like the legislation has just been brought in.

this policy was decided by bush appointees.
How many years before unpopular policies can be decided by Obama appointees?

How many years before unpopular policies can be decided by Obama appointees?

I'd guess at any laws actually enacted during Obama's reign.

So you don't have a problem with this then?

No: YOU seem to have a gambling problem.

No: YOU seem to have a gambling problem.

He's not the one with a bunch of playing cards as his avatar. :p

He's not the one with a bunch of playing cards as his avatar. :p

Well-played, but he's the one who makes bets about hypothetical situations.

Was it only announced then or what, because the article makes it seem like the legislation has just been brought in.

Does it? That's not the way I read it. The story rather seems to focus on the fact that Rep. Charles Dent now wants to change the requirements and make an exception for the mule skinners.

The legislation itself has been around, known, and active for more than six years.

I'd guess at any laws actually enacted during Obama's reign.

Sounds reasonable to me.

So you don't have a problem with this then?

Why is this a big deal? So a few guys have to apply at the TSA for background checks... and?

No: YOU seem to have a gambling problem.

Can you please drop this gambling thing, I actually find it quite offensive, and answer my question. Do you have a problem with this?

Can you please drop this gambling thing, I actually find it quite offensive, and answer my question. Do you have a problem with this?

Then can you please stop making bets on how I react on a thread I wasn't even IN when you called me? Don't take the LORD's name in vain and all that?

No, I WOULDN'T have a problem with Bush over this. Why? Because I'd be too busy having a problem with Bush over the TORTURE, THE UNNECESSARY WAR, THE DICKWAVING, THE COWBOY DIPLOMACY, THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE RACIAL PROFILING, THE DEAD INNOCENT, THE CHURCH MIXING MORE AND MORE WITH THE STATE, THE FUNDAMENTALISM, AND SO ON, ALL OF THOSE VERY REAL, that's why.

Then can you please stop making bets on how I react on a thread I wasn't even IN when you called me?

I bet doesn't necessarily mean a wager, it's just English slang for I reckon, or I believe.

No, I WOULDN'T have a problem with Bush over this. Why? Because I'd be too busy having a problem with Bush over the TORTURE, THE UNNECESSARY WAR, THE DICKWAVING, THE COWBOY DIPLOMACY, THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE RACIAL PROFILING, THE DEAD INNOCENT, THE CHURCH MIXING MORE AND MORE WITH THE STATE, THE FUNDAMENTALISM, AND SO ON, ALL OF THOSE VERY REAL, that's why.

Which has what to do with this?

THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS

Lolwut?

I bet doesn't necessarily mean a wager, it's just English slang for I reckon, or I believe.



Which has what to do with this?



Lolwut?

1- I know. But I went and used your expression to turn a phrase. I'm fluent in your language, I work with it for a living, I really don't need your help on its basic expressions.

2- Those are very real problems with which I'd take (and did take) issue. I don't give a damn about the mule.

3- Gitmo, for starters.

You are a pro at the appeal to emotion, Heikoku.

You are a pro at the appeal to emotion, Heikoku.

And at all the other appeals, and at actual arguing, yes.

I wonder when the law was enacted...

1- I know. But I went and used your expression to turn a phrase. I'm fluent in your language, I work with it for a living, I really don't need your help on its basic expressions.

I assumed you worked with American English, not English. I didn't think they used "I bet" in America, and I don't need some uppity little Brazilian trying to act like he speaks my language better than me.

3- Gitmo, for starters.

You'd have to be a moron to call that place a concentration camp.

Can you please drop this gambling thing, I actually find it quite offensive,
If you're going to pick a fight, you might want to get some thicker skin. Even fucking Hotwife didn't make this about Obama/Bush, you did.

If you're going to pick a fight, you might want to get some thicker skin. Even fucking Hotwife didn't make this about Obama/Bush, you did.

He repeatedly said I had a gambling problem, I think that's fair enough to ask him to stop. If I had thin skin (is that the right term?) I would've reported him to the mods.

I assumed you worked with American English, not English. I didn't think they used "I bet" in America, and I don't need some uppity little Brazilian trying to act like he speaks my language better than me.



You'd have to be a moron to call that place a concentration camp.

1- Considering I know these details of your language at both variations, along with technical terms in several fields, I just might.

2- Since you seem intent on making this childish, I'll answer: "Sez you!" and be done with it.

He repeatedly said I had a gambling problem, I think that's fair enough to ask him to stop. If I had thin skin (is that the right term?) I would've reported him to the mods.

You made a post about me at a thread I wasn't even IN.

He repeatedly said I had a gambling problem, I think that's fair enough to ask him to stop. If I had thin skin (is that the right term?) I would've reported him to the mods.

It was an obvious turn of phrase. You could shake it off or you could be a baby about it. Guess which one you chose?

1- Considering I know these details of your language at both variations, along with technical terms in several fields, I just might.

I highly doubt that. God, you're one of the most arrogant and most immodest people I have ever conversed with.

2- Since you seem intent on making this childish, I'll answer: "Sez you!" and be done with it.

You cannot call Guantanamo a concentration camp. It's an army/naval base, with a camp for holding enemy combatants, or any other Muslims who the US government doesn't like. Peopled are tortured there, yes, but it is not a concentration camp.

It was an obvious turn of phrase. You could shake it off or you could be a baby about it. Guess which one you chose?

It wasn't as if I started crying and insulting him as soon as he used it. I politely asked him to stop the 3rd or 4th time he implied I had gambling problems.

I highly doubt that. God, you're one of the most arrogant and most immodest people I have ever conversed with.



You cannot call Guantanamo a concentration camp. It's an army/naval base, with a camp for holding enemy combatants, or any other Muslims who the US government doesn't like. Peopled are tortured there, yes, but it is not a concentration camp.

1- I am, indeed. What may annoy you is how often I'm RIGHT about it, though. How did you know my name, by the way?

2- The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45. Source: Wikipedia, and the Oxford English Dictionary.

It wasn't as if I started crying and insulting him as soon as he used it. I politely asked him to stop the 3rd or 4th time he implied I had gambling problems.

Well, your propensity to bet on hypotheticals led me to believe so.

It wasn't as if I started crying and insulting him as soon as he used it. I politely asked him to stop the 3rd or 4th time he implied I had gambling problems.

Sure, sure. And it's a mouth occupation device, not a pacifier. Whatever floats your boat.

1- I am, indeed. What may annoy you is how often I'm RIGHT about it, though.

Yes, the few times you're right are annoying.
2- The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated

And there we have it. Not all of Guantanamo are non-combatants.

Sure, sure. And it's a mouth occupation device, not a pacifier. Whatever floats your boat.

You nearly made me do a spit take there. :D

Sure, sure. And it's a mouth occupation device, not a pacifier. Whatever floats your boat.

Seriously, what is your problem? I politely asked him to stop after he repeatedly implied that I had gambling issues.

Yes, the few times you're right are annoying.


And there we have it. Not all of Guantanamo are non-combatants.

1- So, you learned to turn a phrase now? Good.

2- Then you'd better tell the Germans, who also held combatants in their concentration camps.

Seriously, what is your problem? I politely asked him to stop after he repeatedly implied that I had gambling issues.

Given that YOU started this whole game when YOU mentioned my name in a thread I wasn't even in, I have to ask what is YOUR problem.

Seriously, what is your problem? I politely asked him to stop after he repeatedly implied that I had gambling issues.

Hey, hey, no need to convince me. I believe you. It's not like you're being cranky or over reacting or anything...no...

Given that YOU started this whole game when YOU mentioned my name in a thread I wasn't even in, I have to ask what is YOUR problem.

Because I believed it this had hit the news a few months ago, you'd be complaining. You have since told me you wouldn't. I'll take your word for it. I was wrong.

Because I believed it this had hit the news a few months ago, you'd be complaining. You have since told me you wouldn't. I'll take your word for it. I was wrong.

Mainly because a few months ago this wasn't really an important issue compared to the myriad of other ones I pointed out, is it not?

I wonder when the law was enacted...

Wiki sez:


The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), signed on November 25, 2002 by the President of the United States, is designed to protect ports and waterways from terrorist attacks.

This law is the U.S. equivalent of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS), and was fully implemented on July 1, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Transportation_Security_Act

So as I said: During the fun days of the Bush administration.

Hey, hey, no need to convince me. I believe you. It's not like you're being cranky or over reacting or anything...no...

I may be over-reacting slightly, but part of that's because you're sat on the sidelines sniping at me while I try and have a debate with Heikoku.

Mainly because a few months ago this wasn't really an important issue compared to the myriad of other ones I pointed out, is it not?

So does that mean you think it's an important issue now or what?

So does that mean you think it's an important issue now or what?

Not really. But the fact is the law was implemented on July 1, 2004.

Feel free to wonder if Hotwife would be complaining about the law if he knew it was enacted by Dubya, by the way, with the added advantage that Hotwife actually started this delightful thread.

Feel free to wonder if Hotwife would be complaining about the law if he knew it was enacted by Dubya, by the way


I don't think he would, actually. He probably wouldn't condone it, but I doubt he'd bring it up to point out how bad the Bush regime was. But then again, I doubt you'd make a thread on something stupid a Liberal/leftist did or said.

LOL, oops, bushes men didn't think of this problem. But seriously that leg should be repealed or modified to "if the transport route passes any strategicly important sites.".

Wiki sez:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Transportation_Security_Act

So as I said: During the fun days of the Bush administration.

Interesting. Maybe competent people might have seen this weirdness coming before they made the law and enacted it. ;)

I don't think he would, actually.

Well, gee. Y'think?

He probably wouldn't condone it, but I doubt he'd bring it up to point out how bad the Bush regime was. But then again, I doubt you'd make a thread on something stupid a Liberal/leftist did or said.

So, you're saying that everyone has political agendas? And that sarcasm is more than a word with 7 letters beginning with S? That's new.

LOL, oops, bushes men didn't think of this problem.

I'm not "Bush's (see, I can spell) man", and I don't find it a problem. I just can't stand hypocrisy/double standards.

I'm not "Bush's (see, I can spell) man", and I don't find it a problem. I just can't stand hypocrisy/double standards.

Even hypothetical ones. :p

I'm not "Bush's (see, I can spell) man", and I don't find it a problem. I just can't stand hypocrisy/double standards.

Well if it'll make you feel better, I can't even stand single standards. ;)

Even hypothetical ones. :p

Yes, and you showed me that you wouldn't be bothered by this. I admitted I was wrong, what more do you want? *Tears out own heart, offers it to H2*

I may be over-reacting slightly, but part of that's because you're sat on the sidelines sniping at me while I try and have a debate with Heikoku.

You were calling H2 et al out for what you think they might have done. I was calling you out for what you were doing.

Yes, and you showed me that you wouldn't be bothered by this. I admitted I was wrong, what more do you want? *Tears out own heart, offers it to H2*

Whee, free meat! *Starts heating the oil at the pan*

In December, Hayes wrote to Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, about the requirement. Dent, in turn, wrote to the TSA requesting a waiver, noting the mode of transportation involved was "mule-drawn canal boats."
This is my favorite part. They wouldn't even be in this mess if they hadn't pointed out to the TSA that what they were doing is against the rules. They had apparently been operating in the shadowy world of blackmarket colonial reenactments for years without trouble, but then some dumb ass felt the need to write a letter to their congressman saying, "Hey, guys! We're breaking the law over here! Look at us! Look at us! We're breaking the law! YAY!!"

I'm going to pass on a lesson that my father taught me, and that I, in turn, taught my younger siblings: "Never tell dad anything. Ever." Insert other authority figures as necessary.

Interesting. Maybe competent people might have seen this weirdness coming before they made the law and enacted it. ;)

Quite possible. Hypothetically, they would have :p

How many years before unpopular policies can be decided by Obama appointees?
duh

as soon as someone who was appointed by obama makes a decision its on his watch.

Uh. Yeah. So the big joke is, these guys are named "Hank" and "George," and oh how silly it is to do background checks on people with non-Middle-Eastern-sounding names! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh) Or what?

I bet if this had happened during the Bush years, Trostia, Heikoku 2, TCT, Gauthier etc would be all over it by now.

It did, and I wasn't.

Uh. Yeah. So the big joke is, these guys are named "Hank" and "George," and oh how silly it is to do background checks on people with non-Middle-Eastern-sounding names! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh) Or what?

Mule skinners? Really?

It did, and I wasn't.

Yeah, I was totally wrong on that one and my point backfired.

Mule skinners? Really?

I don't see any indication that mule skinners are legal exceptions, or why they should be.

I don't see any indication that mule skinners are legal exceptions, or why they should be.

Since when are mule skinners terrorists?

Since when are mule skinners terrorists?

Since when does complying with federal law make you a terrorist?

Since when does complying with federal law make you a terrorist?

I really don't see what the big deal with this law is. So a few guys have to get a federal background check? And? I've had background checks run on me before, what's the big deal?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/25/mule.skinner.blues/index.html



There are some muleskinners over at the C&O Canal Park in Maryland as well.

I guess we have to look out for terrorists who somehow take control of a canal barge, and drive the mules and barge into something...

So it is Obama's fault that Bush instituted all this antiterrorism nonsense and that muleskinners have to have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boats?

I'm sure you will piss and moan that you didn't mention Obama anywhere, but you arn't fooling anyone.

So it is Obama's fault that Bush instituted all this antiterrorism nonsense and that muleskinners have to have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boats?

I'm sure you will piss and moan that you didn't mention Obama anywhere, but you arn't fooling anyone.

From a thread in moderation, it doesn't seem like DK will be pissing and moaning about anything. o_O

From a thread in moderation, it doesn't seem like DK will be pissing and moaning about anything. o_O

We may have lost a great addition to the forum, but I just checked, and his nation still exists, so I don't know what's going on.

We may have lost a great addition to the forum, but I just checked, and his nation still exists, so I don't know what's going on.

Your opinion.

I don't see any indication that mule skinners are legal exceptions, or why they should be.

This is like making the guy running the rollercoaster take an anti-terror backroundground check. What's a guy pulling a boat with a mule going to do? smuggle ob-osama half a mile to the end of the park?

ob-osama

:rolleyes:

Newsflash: It did happen during the Bush years.

So, what you're saying is "Crow, it's what's for dinner."

This is like making the guy running the rollercoaster take an anti-terror backroundground check.

No, it's not, because he's not a transportation worker.

What's a guy pulling a boat with a mule going to do? smuggle ob-osama half a mile to the end of the park?

Maybe he would do something in his off-hours. Maybe in the seasons he's not working this particular job. That's not the point, though; it's just a background check, and you're acting like it's a criminal charge.

You seem at once to hate Obama (nice jab there, hur hur, the name sounds like Osama, hurrr) but are criticizing the stupidity of a law passed under the Bush Administration and the auspices of the War On Terror™. You can't have it both ways, you know.

No, it's not, because he's not a transportation worker.



Maybe he would do something in his off-hours. Maybe in the seasons he's not working this particular job. That's not the point, though; it's just a background check, and you're acting like it's a criminal charge.

You seem at once to hate Obama (nice jab there, hur hur, the name sounds like Osama, hurrr) but are criticizing the stupidity of a law passed under the Bush Administration and the auspices of the War On Terror™. You can't have it both ways, you know.

Ok, bad metaphor.

Its like demanding a background check for the carriage drivers around centeral park.

And that was a bad joke on my part. I don't hate him, I just don't like the job he's doing.

Its like demanding a background check for the carriage drivers around centeral[sic] park.

Why would this inherently be a bad thing?

I really don't see what the big deal with this law is. So a few guys have to get a federal background check? And? I've had background checks run on me before, what's the big deal?
The $100...

And the fact that the law is being applied on a 2 mile enclosed canal that goes nowhere or near anything or any importance.

Ok, bad metaphor.

Its like demanding a background check for the carriage drivers around centeral park.

And that was a bad joke on my part. I don't hate him, I just don't like the job he's doing.

Actually read the damn article. And then, since everyone ignored in the first time, how is it Obama's fault that Bush instituted all this antiterrorism nonsense and that muleskinners have to have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boats?

The $100...

And the fact that the law is being applied on a 2 mile enclosed canal that goes nowhere or near anything or any importance.

I fail to see why everyone is bitching about this. It is being blanket applied to everyone who has to have Coast Guard credentials. What you should be pissing and moaning about is why people who pull a barge by mule have to have Coast Guard credentials.

I fail to see why everyone is bitching about this. It is being blanket applied to everyone who has to have Coast Guard credentials. What you should be pissing and moaning about is why people who pull a barge by mule have to have Coast Guard credentials.
Because navigable waterways fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Without knowing WHICH credential they had to get, I would assume it would be the basic "Yes, I know what I am doing with a boat. I know how to keep my boat from sinking. I know how to rescue people in case my boat DOES sink. I know not to call my boat the Titanic and to avoid and and all icebergs" license.

Because navigable waterways fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Without knowing WHICH credential they had to get, I would assume it would be the basic "Yes, I know what I am doing with a boat. I know how to keep my boat from sinking. I know how to rescue people in case my boat DOES sink. I know not to call my boat the Titanic and to avoid and and all icebergs" license.

>.>

<.<

*Names his boat the Ikari*

*Looks at iceberg*

That iceberg smells like blood and looks like my mother.

You cannot call Guantanamo a concentration camp. It's an army/naval base, with a camp for holding enemy combatants, or any other Muslims who the US government doesn't like. Peopled are tortured there, yes, but it is not a concentration camp.

*palmface*

For the sake of my own sanity and faith in humanity, I refuse to believe you are serious anymore.

Actually read the damn article. And then, since everyone ignored in the first time, how is it Obama's fault that Bush instituted all this antiterrorism nonsense and that muleskinners have to have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boats?

This has nothing to do with why I don't like him. I am a fiscal conserative. His economic policies are my problem.

So, what you're saying is "Crow, it's what's for dinner."

Tasty crow, served with ketchup and freedom fries.

Because navigable waterways fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Without knowing WHICH credential they had to get, I would assume it would be the basic "Yes, I know what I am doing with a boat. I know how to keep my boat from sinking. I know how to rescue people in case my boat DOES sink. I know not to call my boat the Titanic and to avoid and and all icebergs" license.

Look!! It was FINE when it left Belfast...:tongue:

It's silly that they have to get a background check but I don't think you can blame law makers for not making excemptions for every obscure method of transport under the sun. So long as it's rectified, it's not really that big a deal.

Yet another instance of a law that needs to be ignored on the basis of absurdity.