Normally I wouldn't comment about someone's political blog unless it's half way interesting. Normally its all anti-Bush this, pro-Bush that, you know uninteresting political blog spin.
I don't really care one way or another right now. I'll wait till 2008 gets closer. (Except for this topic.)
What makes me take notice is when someone posts something at Oklahoma's expense.
I found the latest uninformed about Oklahoma via my Oklahoma Pubsub feed. The name of the site is "Life in Bush's America." Its basically just another in a long line of anti-Bush sites.
What this person failed to do is a little research to find out why Oklahoma gets port security funding.
It's called the Tulsa Port of Catossa (www.tulsaport.com).
The Tulsa Port of Catoosa is one of the largest, most inland river-ports in the United States.
Just read this article from the OKC Journal Record (via findarticles.com)
UPDATE 2:22PM: The article he posted has been retracted. (Please read his comments here.) I would like to thank him for being a stand up guy and noting his error. I know there is a disparity in homeland security funding, and this shouldn't be. I thank him for pointing it out. But just because there isn't foreign traffic here, doesn't mean the inland port doesn't need protected. Just as I would want protected our inland railroads, highways, airlines, power plants, etc... And how much would $750,000 actually cover anyway? Salary for 20 or so security guards and/or inspectors? One or two high-tech scanners? $750,000 is just a drop in the bucket.
I don't really care one way or another right now. I'll wait till 2008 gets closer. (Except for this topic.)
What makes me take notice is when someone posts something at Oklahoma's expense.
I found the latest uninformed about Oklahoma via my Oklahoma Pubsub feed. The name of the site is "Life in Bush's America." Its basically just another in a long line of anti-Bush sites.
[link] The State of Oklahoma was given $750,000 for Port Security. Please refer to a map so you can see why this is a little odd.The map link points to a large map of Oklahoma.
What this person failed to do is a little research to find out why Oklahoma gets port security funding.
It's called the Tulsa Port of Catossa (www.tulsaport.com).
The Tulsa Port of Catoosa is one of the largest, most inland river-ports in the United States.
Just read this article from the OKC Journal Record (via findarticles.com)
Tulsa Port of Catoosa's shipping tonnage increases over last year's (Jun 17, 2005)I hope you spotted a few keywords in that article. You will know why port security is needed in the heart of the nation. Please, do a little research about Oklahoma before you post.
Shipping tonnage at the Tulsa Port of Catoosa increased in May from a year earlier. The Port of Catoosa's shipments for May totaled 187,000 tons of cargo, up from 164,500 tons in 107 barges for May 2004. Shipments in April totaled 190,000 tons in 121 barges. ...
... Although inbound shipments of dry fertilizer, oats and molasses may have declined, it was still a great month for outbound wheat, grain products and liquid fertilizer ...
... The Oklahoma segment of the McClellan-Kerr reported 382,000 tons in May, up from the 334,000 tons shipped in April and 322,000 tons were recorded in May 2004. Of this month's shipments, 49 percent went to or from the Tulsa Port of Catoosa. ...
UPDATE 2:22PM: The article he posted has been retracted. (Please read his comments here.) I would like to thank him for being a stand up guy and noting his error. I know there is a disparity in homeland security funding, and this shouldn't be. I thank him for pointing it out. But just because there isn't foreign traffic here, doesn't mean the inland port doesn't need protected. Just as I would want protected our inland railroads, highways, airlines, power plants, etc... And how much would $750,000 actually cover anyway? Salary for 20 or so security guards and/or inspectors? One or two high-tech scanners? $750,000 is just a drop in the bucket.
