Wal-Mart Smeared in Commercial for 100% Container Scanning

Are They Villains or Unintentional Guardians?

By Sunset Dreams, published Apr 05, 2007
Published Content: 6  Total Views: 864  Favorited By: 0 CPs
Rating: 3.0 of 5
In at least 16 cities across the US, residents will begin to see ads against Wal-Mart...not anything new as Wal-Mart is a good target...but these ads are meant to inspire fear without letting the viewer know the whole story. Before I even get into the facts that the ad is leaving out, let me simply discuss the look of the ad. Two excellent motivators for people have always been Love and Fear. Both of those emotions will make people do the most insane things. This ad uses Fear as its theme. They show images of a nuclear explosion and then Osama bin laden and lead into how people fear that a nuclear bomb can be brought into the country through our ports. The place all three images right next to each other. I find it despicable when people use Fear and Terror as tools to convey their perceived "truth".

People will react without putting any thought into the words that are being conveyed in the ad. Much like several months ago with the whole Dubai Ports World incident where many US individuals were suddenly concerned that an Arab country would "own" a port in the US and that would comprise our security. People were spreading fear without any facts. DP World wouldn't own a Port Authority, they would just take over certain stevedoring operations at some ports in the US. Security would, as always, still be in the hands of the US Ports and Coast Guard. The deal was approved by the US Treasury until someone made a comment about a "foreign" entity owning ports and it all went down hill (mind you no one seems to have a problem with the UK being involved in Ports). Fear clouds peoples common sense. Now onto some of the points brought up in the ad.

Wal-Mart Smeared in Commercial for 100% Container Scanning

Wal-Mart Logo

Credit: Wal-Mart

Copyright: Wal-Mart

Takeaways
  • Equipment used for 100% scanning is not fully tested or approved
  • The government has a layered plan for ensuring Port Security both domestic and international.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
 
(okay..i'm running my mouth now) things would secure our ports even more. I just hope, in the meantime, nothing unfortunate happens and that the Democrats keep moving forward in the plan to secure our ports. And completely non-related (I loved your "busie corporate cronie" comment)

Posted on 04/05/2007 at 7:04:00 PM

 
(got cut off)...are created. I also believe larger ports like Long Beach/LA and Seattle need a lot more security than just scanning cargo. The Container Security Initiative was created to "addresses the threat to border security and global trade posed by the potential for terrorist use of a maritime container to deliver a weapon. CSI proposes a security regime to ensure all containers that pose a potential risk for terrorism are identified and inspected at foreign ports before they are placed on vessels destined for the United Sates." The goal was to have 50 foreign ports belong to the CSI program by end of last year. They currently have ports cooperating in the program in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. We have a lot more to go to secure our ports. Cargo screening is one step that needs to be taken, but there are many more. Things like the TWIC card to secure access into ports, better equipment and more personnel...these and many other thin

Posted on 04/05/2007 at 7:04:00 PM

 
I'm not the least bit a fan of this government, being a staunch democrat. I can't say for sure whether it could have been done years ago or not. If the technology was available and fully approved and they chose not to implement it, than I think it was a bad move. If it wasn't fully tested, than I would rather they want. I'd want the equipment to be at 100% before installing it at ports. I'm certainly hoping that the democrats will continue to push all Port Security forward as I feel that the Republican Government is more concerned with overseas than at home. As for the 90% figure, that was what I located at various websites, from both government and othe information sources. CBP mentions 90% by this year, Michael Chertoff said 80% by the end of last year. But he was the only 80% i saw mentioned. Where they pull that number, I don't know. They could be making a guestimate based on their expected scanning levels or they could be using actual numeric data, no one lists how they ar

Posted on 04/05/2007 at 7:04:00 PM

 
This is so rife with misinformation...first, it is possible to get to 100% scanning in under a year..and it should have been done years ago, but it takes a Dem Congress (to get it started, and probably a Dem President to finish) and the reason the equipment isn't "approved" even though it is in use around the world, is because the bushie corporate cronies (like walmart) don't want it..and your 90% scanned at US ports figure..first, it's not that high..and second, even if it was 100% that's all peachy if you live in Indiana or Kansas, but it doesn't do much for Seattle or Long Beach. The scanning needs to occur at ship point of origin..

Posted on 04/05/2007 at 6:04:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
Most Commented On