Only in DC: Fire Mary Peters

Fire Mary Peters

I walked off the metro at Navy Yard this weekend and saw these ads throughout the station. They didn’t make any sense to me. Fire Mary Peters? Who’s Mary Peters? Why do these make any sense here at all?

Then I went up the escalators and saw the Department of Transportation. Mary Peters is Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Then I realized just how much it would suck to come to work every day on the Metro to see ads that you should be fired. Only in DC does stuff like that happen. I suppose it could be worse, it could’ve been a whole big billboard thing. That really would’ve sucked.

15 Comments so far

  1. SWDCist (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

    I guess the big assumption is that the Secretary of Transportation takes the Metro to work…

  2. Max (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

    At the bottom you’ll see, "Paid for by a Group of People Who Have Nothing Better To Do With Their Time."

  3. Chris Loos (unregistered) on February 25th, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

    "I guess the big assumption is that the Secretary of Transportation takes the Metro to work…"

    Being that Mary Peters axed the Tysons/Dulles rail project, I think its safe to say that she doesn’t.

  4. C Smith (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 7:18 am

    >Being that Mary Peters axed the Tysons/Dulles rail project, I think its safe to say that she doesn’t.

    Off with her slippers!

  5. TeamsterPower (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

    I think what really sucks is that another member of the Bush Administration not only breaks the law, but simultaneously puts all Americans in harms way.

    The Mexican trucking program, the great big promise to NAFTA, allows for dangerous trucks to roam the highways of the United States. The trucks and their drivers are not held to same standards as American drivers and trucks. Think about that …Can you imagine driving next to a trailer that doesn’t have anti-lock brakes on a cold slippery day like today? Can you believe that these drivers out of Mexico can potentially be driving for upwards of 20 hours by the time they begin barreling past you on the highway? What about being a professional US driver and having to get a CDL license, a Haz-mat license – in some cases, and pass numerous drug and alcohol tests … now think of our Mexican brothers who are not required to do any of the above (and especially the pee tests … as there are no labs for that in Mexico).

    You see, these trucks are not equipped with the braking systems that American trucks are REQUIRED to have. All professional drivers in the United States cannot work/drive for than 11 hours before they are forced to take a break for a set amount of time; that’s fine … but what happens with a Mexican driver who traveled for 12- 15 hours before he got to the border — then went another 11? I don’t want to be near that driver when he is on hour 18 of his day; you shouldn’t either.

    This is just a smidgen of why Mary needs to be sacked. She made a mockery of her position, defied Congress’ wish to scrap this dangerous program, and interpreted the law worse than Macbeth does math. Mary’s moves on this abandons all logic; she is not fit for her job … she needs to go.

    For more information on this moron, go see

  6. Joe638NYC (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

    >Who’s Mary Peters?

    I think the entire campaign is to raise awareness that she is in control of the current situation where unsafe Mexican domiciled vehicles are roaming freely throughout the United States. Maybe you and your readers should check out the site, there are lives at risk and the will of the people, Congress, Senate and the President(via the Omnibus bill) are being ignored.

  7. Not a Moron like SWDCist (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

    Actually if you’ll point your face towards the sign you will see it says "Paid for by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters" the same people trying to keep the roadways safe, the same roadways that your families share with these junk mexican trucks.
    Yes, I AM a PROUD member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

  8. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 7:27 pm

    Just a reminder that we like to keep it civil here, folks. Glad to see that the unionbots have found this post. Yes, I recognize that this is an ad paid for by the Teamsters. However, is this really a huge issue? How many accidents were caused by foreign drivers last year? How many fatalities? Are they per-capita higher or lower than the union truckers in the states?

    There’s no information here, just emotional argument.

  9. Joe638NYC (unregistered) on February 26th, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

    Yes Tom, this is a tremendous issue, as of last year there was only a small corridor of US territory that a Mexican domiciled vehicle could travel. As of now the inspection for a Mex truck is not up to the US standards, neither is the background(a US driver will not be allowed to haul cargo if convicted of a crime in his vehicle, that does not apply to Mex drivers), please refer to the post above by Teamsterpower for more on the safety issues. I am not a Teamster, although I once was, here in NY, when the management of the supermarket warehouse decided to move out of state to get away from the unions and pay piece work, they went to Connecticut, who is now in the midst of an organizing campaign due to the workers who probably could kill themselves early in their career getting a bit gimp and older. With the new trucking program, whats to stop that warehouse from moving south of the border and have the supermarkets place the order 1 day earlier?

    In the states a US truck driver is only allowed to drive for 10 hours straight, Mex-Dom trucks can drive for 11 hours before they start clocking down the 10 here in the states(or is it 10 and 11, I’m tired and trying to give you a very informative answer). With the precarious border safety and illegal aliens flooding this country at the rate of 400,000+ per year(according to the Mexican government on how many illegal aliens from other nations they have passing through their country on the way to the states), why would we think that policing these trucks would be handled any better. American jobs would be crippled even more.

    There are a lot of accidents in Mexico, one which sticks out recently is the truck which made a u-turn on the border bridge killing 2 when the driver noticed the proper authorities at the border. Another recent one is when a Mexican truck carrying explosives had an accident that killed 37 and wounded 150(please go to the other site I contribute to and search for "explosion"). Yes the Mexican wage is obviously lower.

    Hope that answered some questions, you can see the other current injustices against workers here and throughout the world at my site by clicking my nick. You would be surprised how workers in every industry, blue collar, white collar, construction workers, engineers, programmers, doctors, teachers and government employees alike, are getting trampled upon in structured succession. While the forces that divide us are making more and more each day.

  10. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 7:34 am

    Joe, you didn’t provide any of the data I asked for. Tell me:

    – How many accidents involving Mexican Trucks there have been in the US since the policy change
    – How many injuries and fatalities there have been
    – What’s the per capita rate of accidents for Mexican Truckers vs. American Teamsters?

    Otherwise, you’re just saying the regulations are different and that is bad, without the data to back it up. You’re making emotional, and not math/logic arguments.

  11. jim (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 11:48 am

    Tom, I don’t think there have been any fatalities yet (though I could be wrong) but that’s mainly because these trucks have been kept off the roads. The unions/environmental groups are trying to keep them off so there won’t BE any accidents (among other things–the environmental impact of letting these Mexican trucks onto our highways would be pretty ugly).

  12. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 11:55 am

    Let’s be fair here, Jim, they have a vested employment interest in preventing other people from driving trucks on our roads: Those are loads that they won’t get paid to carry.

    So, they’re trying to argue safety when what they really mean is "Give us their money, now, please."

    Safety’s just a ruse.

  13. Joe638NYC (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

    Of course the Teamsters have a vested interest, as would anyone who would lose their own job to the inferior wages in Mexico, but the arguing point of safety isn’t only being taken up by the Teamsters. The lawsuit to stop this pilot program not only has the Teamsters involved, but also the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law Foundation. Also in Sept. 2007, Senate voted 74-24 to block funding for the pilot program, mirroring the House vote on July 24. That was all buttoned up in the Omnibus bill which GW penned his signature to. Mary Peters is breaking the law. Main Stream Media is ignoring this issue. What the Teamsters are doing is raising awareness to it, and they are doing what their members are paying them to do, protect their interests. As far as ruse, it’s a lot less misleading than "possible WMD’s", "No Child Left Behind" or "Right To Work state". I’ve stated my peace.


  14. Garry Van Kirk (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

    Ms Peters self centerd attitude;

    As I have mentioned in the past of Ms Peters self centerd attitude. Feb 17, 07 – 3:57 PM( ).

    The attempted legislation to force helmets onto everyone nationally, and the over 1/2 million recalled helmets that the NHTSA does a terrible job of managing. With the use of the NTSB to lobby Universal Helmet Laws when the NHTSA and DOT have been prohibited from doing this by Congress.

    Congress Piles on Mary Peters-Pess Release

    Peters’ fellow Arizonan Ed Pastor, a Democrat, cautioned her that the constitutional separation of powers means that she must follow the intent of Congress.

    "I advise you that the program as it is should not be implemented," Pastor told Peters during a budget hearing by the Transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

    Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said, "You violated the law."

    Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-Texas, asked rhetorically, "Does the department have the legal authority to disregard Congress’s intent?"

    Rodriguez noted that Peters’ pilot program to open the border to Mexican trucks continues.

    "The intent of the language was to prohibit that from occurring," Rodriguez told Peters.

    [Editors’ Note] This comment has been truncated.

  15. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on February 27th, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

    I’ve truncated Garry’s comment because he pasted in numerous press releases to the end of his comment, and it was really screwing up the page formatting.

    Please don’t be an asshat and post press releases in our comments. It’s not cool. I attempted to email Garry several times, but he just kept posting it over and over and over.

    Remember kids: be kind, rewind. And don’t post press releases.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.