Portside
Oh, I can’t tell you how much I love this one. Bill Clinton advising the monarchs of Dubai on how to sell the ports deal. I’d expect no less from Slick Willie. Just happy to see one more confirmation of what absolute, rank opportunists he and the Missus are. It all reminds me of how the Whitewater development project specialized in ripping off working class rubes with bait and switch mortgage deals. Yum-yum!
Meanwhile, I’m getting more and more curious about how Bush is going to get out of this one. It seems a no-brainer to me that the ports deal is dead. What makes me wonder is why Karl Rove –or someone with a brain in the White House—hasn’t already found a creative way to scuttle it (like calling up the robed rulers of Dubai and telling them to “voluntarily†withdraw the whole deal or face, maybe, um... thermonuclear war).
Very little now surprises me about politics. But it seems unlikely that Bush is going to turn around any significant numbers on this rather astounding scheme. The last four years of hyping the generalized threat of Arabs has come home to roost in what, I think, is a rather irrevocable way. The average guy mulling this over in his head just can’t come up with any solid reasons as to why turning our ports management over to the United Arab Emirates might be good idea.
The 45-day review period that Bush has now commenced merely extends and deepens his political agony. Should we be taking bets as to exactly on what day the Emirates, indeed, “volunteer†to step back?There’s also a secondary question I would pose to my more conservative friends, those fans of privatization. Put aside, for the moment, just what sort of state we’re talking about. But the Dubai ports company is a state-owned enterprise. If a foreign state-owned company is fit to run our ports, why don’t we create our own government-owned agency to do the same? I don’t get it.
P.S. Speaking of loathsome Clintonites. Check out this story on ex-Cabinet member Donna Shalala. A 9,000 square foot residence?
March 1st, 2006 at 11:39 pm
How’d he get that plum consulting gig away from Bob Dole ?
March 1st, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Answer: Bill’s quicker on the draw. Dole can tell you that there’s a delayed reaction time with Viagra.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:44 pm
“why don’t we create our own government-owned agency to do the same”
The guys in Dubai don’t have a Congress and regulatory agencies looking over their shoulders, so there’s less red tape.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Oh, that was cold…
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 am
I’m not dennis perrin’s press secretary or president of his fan club but this is a better place for his demystifying analysis. he gets it
The lib-Dem arm flapping over the Dubai Ports deal is one of the more opportunistic, cynical and asinine displays of late, which is to say that it’s perfectly in line with what passes for American political discourse. The libs are dying to prove how “anti-terror†they are, how they, unlike the GOP, are the “real†guardians of American lives and property. From Daily Kos to Air America to Hillary Clinton to lib bloggers, trolls and squawkers in between, “Portgate†is all the rage, an opportunity to flex their fantasy muscles and jump on the Arab-bashing bandwagon. And just to make sure that this present state of mind is clearly understood by all the Right People, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Mr. Progressive himself, while speaking before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs yesterday, said, “Today we see the specter, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, of a company who is about to take over American ports, which actively continues today to boycott Israel.â€
Well, I guess the Israeli state will have to squeeze by on the measly billions the US pumps into its coffers every year.
Of course, this rabid yowling has nothing to do with “national security†and everything to do with taking full advantage of a political opening, using the very xenophobic weapons that are part of the reactionary arsenal. Not only does this remind us that the War on Terror is a crock, it emphasizes all too well that no real opposition to the corporate status quo exists, at least in the ownership parties. Instead of examining the business-as-usual aspect of the Dubai Ports deal, and how the American ruling elite and their political lackeys benefit from such global financial arrangements, liberals prefer to fan nativist flames for domestic political gain, especially in a mid-term election year. Over the past few days, lib radio talker Ed Schultz has giggled and guffawed about how the Dems are poised to re-take the House and Senate this November, and how the Dubai debacle is one of the driving forces behind this potential electoral swing. In other words, the Arab booga-booga can work both ways and for the same purposes — power, influence and control.
But what is truly amusing in all this pretend uproar is the heroic posture of those who don’t want to deal with a state boasting “terrorist†ties. Whatever involvement the United Arab Emirates has in aiding terrorism, it doesn’t approach the violent level of, say, Israel, or Turkey, or Colombia, or even — gasp! — the United States. Yet you’ll never hear mainstream libs making this much noise over arms sales to these and other countries. Indeed, when the Clinton admin sold the UAE 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters in 1998, I don’t recall any outrage from the lib corner or concerns that their idol Bill Clinton was aiding and abetting “terrorism,†and this was at the very moment when the UAE recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, one of the criminal indictments that libs today are hurling at that oil nation while attacking the ports deal. (Arms sales was just one of the chummy features of Clinton’s friendship with the UAE.) And should the Dems do well this November and win the presidency in ‘08, does anyone seriously believe that business dealings with the sheikdoms will be radically altered or eliminated altogether? Please.
“Portgate†is yet another domestic political ruse that says nothing about the global corporate power structure that makes such deals inevitable, nor about what truly constitutes terrorism in the here & now. It’s simple, sleazy fear mongering, another reminder that the Dems and their lib mouthpieces have the same contempt for the populace as do GOP reactionaries.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:05 am
One of the talking heads (sorry, can’t remember which one) expressed the theory that the ports deal is payback for some as yet unannounced “major” contribution that UAE has made to fighting the WOT. This theory continues by saying that the contribution cannot be announced as it would undermine the standing of UAE in the Arab world.
I can see a way out: Bush continues to publicly support the deal while privately telling Congressional Republicans that he is okay with them “voting their conscience” on the deal.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
Ain’t that the truth. Excellent remarks, Ahmed.
Personally, I am neutral on the ports deal. I don’t like the idea that a country with as bad a human rights record (esp. in trafficking of humans) is going to be allowed to oversee major U.S. ports.
But on the other hand, you are right, Ahmed. Listening to liberals act giddy at the spectacle of making political hay out of this is so comical. It reminds me of George Costanza on Seinfeld screaming, “I’ve got an opening! I’ve got an opening!” Liberals have been a pathetic lot for many years, but watching them exploit anti-Arab sentiment here represents yet another low for them.
This follows celebration over the fact that a man whom no Democrat can defeat in a one-to-one matchup has an approval rating of 34%. I don’t exactly see how this is a cause for celebration.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:01 am
Ah, the civility scold Mr. Cooper allows himself a healthy swig from the bottom of the barrel; a viagra joke. Seasoned with the whory chestnuts of Whitewater; the ultimate in non scandels he spent years obsessing about while somewhere people were developing their budgets for boxcutters.
Hmmmm…. seems to me it was less than a week ago he was telling us idiots that we should GET OVER our Bush problems; for obviously the leader of the free world is completly powerless. Clinton hatred, of course, is worthy of no such statutes of limitations, and to the blithering idiocy of the faithfull Clinton is still
guilty of the murder of Chandra Levy.
Let us not dignify the sexism of Mr. Cooper and his poker buddies that would hold Senator Clinton defacto tied to all the Ex. President says. What we might want to note here, is, as usual, the childish melevolance of Cooper’s bile makes an honest critique of Clinton’s actions tough to hear above the dim witted din; I’ll give it a shot.
What’s eyebrow raising here is the hefty speaking fee Clinton took; and how it would seem to bound him to his benifactors. In Jimmy Carter we have a fairly sound model of how an ex-President might behave; if Clinton chooses to hang the shingel out like Jerry Ford; he deserves any disrespect he draws.
Also, Clinton has been a distinct enabler of The Invasion, (more so than Marc Cooper? maybe) and here he IS not so diferent from his wife. So let the Senator defend her record in any additional office time She might seek.
Ah Cooper, remember the two to three years after 9-11? Those were the Salad days. With any impolite, disenting words against our Coperate Whore President strickly off limits; the LIBERAL media could content itself with endless attacks on Al Gore, who was not only not President but who had stepped out of the limelight. Hey, we savaged him as an ego maniac when he ran for President; now we can savage him for stepping aside! What fun!
There are few chances for such mindless buffonary now that Nader heads, in cahoots with the children of Nixon, have made the U.S. war crimes central. So I guess this Clinton thing will have to do. Have a toast at the bar with Hitchens, he might puckishly comment that the few bad apples of Abu Ghraib should have gotten a shot at Chelsa Clinton. Oh Christopher, please, you naughty boy!
So enjoy your yucks with Horowitz gang while you can, Cooper. As the Nation poster posts so well, “why is this guy writing for “The Nation?”
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:18 am
“watching them exploit anti-Arab sentiment here represents yet another low for them.”
That’s the conventional wisdom among folk who look to damn Dems no matter what they do. If they let this thing pass, at least some of you would be excoriating them for not having the guts to stand up to Bush. I think the notion, like Perrin’s, that this issue is simply “anti-Arab” is complete and total bullshit. Really a form of dementia on the “Left” and precisely the reason that species of the “Left” will never be anything other than a thorn in the side of effective political liberalism. It’s a level of analysis that’s on the order of calling opposition to the Iraq war “anti-American”. Thank god it’s such a pitifully small faction. With any luck it will keep getting smaller. I’m proud to be a liberal, ideologically, as a opposed to a leftist. I’ve met more fools on the “left” than I can remember. Many of them truly pathological. I can bash Clinton with the best of them, but I’m not going to commit suicide out of liberal “shame” over Democratic politicians’ manifest flaws nor - more to the point - leave the people in this country to whom liberalism at its best offers some coherent alternative to free-market dogma and wedge-issue opportunism hanging out to dry out so I can grow my self-regard, telling myself how much better I am than people who actually have the balls and pragmatism to get elected to public office. They may be a sorry lot in many ways, but not as sorry as preening leftists who’s history of bringing bullshit and baggage into progressive movements is at least as bad as tepid liberals. I’ve watched the “progress” of the Green Party, for one example, in San Francisco and so far as I’m concerned, had their candidate been elected mayor - which was actually a possibility unlike almost everywhere else in America (and not just because Americans are stupid) - it would have been a disaster. Really bad for the city. Fractious feel-good politics would have reigned supreme for a year or so and then crashed and burned. SF has a liberal Democrat who was excoriated by the local left and he’s the best mayor in the country in my opinion. I have absolutely no apologies for the Democrats if it’s the “left opposition” making the critique because they’re even worse and have less to offer - assuming rhetoric doesn’t count.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:39 am
“Whatever involvement the United Arab Emirates has in aiding terrorism, it doesn’t approach the violent level of, say, Israel, or Turkey, or Colombia, or even — gasp! — the United States. Yet you’ll never hear mainstream libs making this much noise over arms sales to these and other countries.”
Perfect example of why Perrin’s “leftist scold” approach to politics will never escape the cramped world of book signings, campus speaking engagements and blogging.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:40 am
“Instead of examining the business-as-usual aspect of the Dubai Ports deal, and how the American ruling elite and their political lackeys benefit from such global financial arrangements, liberals prefer to fan nativist flames for domestic political gain, especially in a mid-term election year.â€
Ahmed,
Welcome to the planet earth—IT IS ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY—there is no such thing as loyalty to the American people or our country—MONEY AND PROFIT THROUGH GLOBALIZATION is the only thing that counts. Slave labor in every third world country to make multinational corporations billionaires at the expense of the middle and working-class is the only objective and the legislation to carry out these traitorous policies ate enacted by both the DEMOCRACTS AND REPUBLICANS
RED WHITE AND BLUE; NOT OWNED BY YOU!
There are so many myths bandied about—myth one–China is a communist country—NO, NO, NO IT IS A CAPITALIST/DICTATORSHIP—myth two globalization will help to create democracies in other countries —NO, NO, NO globalization just means imperialism, one country occupies another for its resources and cheap labor—third myth—U.S. Workers and the U.S. economy will benefit from globalization—NO, NO, NO IF YOU BELIEVE THIS MYTH, YOU MUST ALSO BELIEVE THAT 1 + 1= 3!
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Feb 2006:
$ 8,246,576,254,977.39
The estimated population of the United States is 298,568,137
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $27,620.42.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.21 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
The effect of globalization on the U.S. economy is seen in our soaring deficit which is created by increased imports and diminished exports. The U.S. Federal Reserve hides this mess with their ENRON accounting techniques–they balance our U.S. checkbook by only counting deposits; the paltry amount of goods exported and neglects counting our withdrawals–the staggering amount of goods the U.S. Imports. By the time our debt explodes into a “million little pieces†or lies our devastated economy will substantially damage all American workers, and workers in all countries that have been subjected to our exploitative globalization policies.
The U.S. Treasury last Thursday acted to avoid hitting the national debt limit and said it’s “imperative†that Congress raise the debt ceiling by the middle of March. The Treasury is suspending reinvestment in the so-called “G-Fund,” an investment vehicle for a federal employees’ retirement system. The action will free up $65.266 billion, without this action we would reach the debt limit today. Congress and the Bush administration have been negotiating an increase in the current $8.18 trillion debt limit. On Wednesday Treasury said it would suspend sales of state and local government non-marketable securities.
The U.S. government has “blessed†a sale that gives Dubai control over the operations of six of our busiest ports: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. “Dubai Ports World†is owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates.
WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT THAT THE U.S. WILL NO LONGER BE OWNED BY THE U.S.
Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai, often dined with Osama bin Laden. The CIA notes the UAE acts as a nexus of illicit drug “transshipment†and, due to its position as a major financial center, is important to many organizations for their money laundering activities.
If we are giving the United Arab Emirates easy access to one of our soft spots—major American ports; is there really a threat of terrorism or is that just some made-up propaganda to keep us fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So maybe we are not that concerned about security problems if tankers in the port of New York could be shut down for weeks and remove billions from our economy; or if problems in the port of Philadelphia could shut down the port and interrupt material and munitions shipments to our soldiers fighting in Iraq; or if problems with a tanker in the port of New Jersey could halt oil shipments to the New Jersey refineries and send gas prices rocketing upwards. So maybe, the long war on terrorism has ended and nobody in the government thought it was necessary to notify the American people; OR MAYBE WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT THAT WE DONâ€T CARE WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM!
THE LITTLE RED BOOK OR IS IT THE BIG DEBT BOOK?
The trade deficit with China, reached $202 billion in 2005, it was responsible for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit. The trade deficit in manufactured products increased $46 billion, to $655 billion (an 8% increase).
Total U.S. imports of goods and services reached $2 trillion in 2005 for the first time, 57% more than the $1.3 trillion in exports. To keep the trade deficit from widening further, the growth rate of exports must exceed the growth rate of imports by 57%. Last year, import growth (13%) exceeded export growth (10%), and imports expanded by $228 billion, almost twice as much as the increase in exports of $120 billion. Net imports as a share of GDP have increased for 10 consecutive years in a row (since 1995). If imports continue to grow at a 13% rate, the trade deficit will decline only if exports grow faster than 20%, which would be double their 2005 growth rate. In the absence of a dramatic and sustained slowdown in U.S. growth, exports can grow more than half again as fast as imports only with a substantial reduction in the value of the U.S. dollar.
The dollar must fall by at least an additional 30% to 40%, or more, to achieve the needed increase in export growth relative to imports. Imports grow rapidly and export growth slows when the dollar is increasing in value. Increases in the value of the dollar make imports cheap and U.S. exports more expensive on world markets. When the dollar appreciates, the rate of growth of imports typically surpasses the growth of exports. Deficits can also be reduced by large, sustained falls in the dollar, as occurred between 1985 and 1991 when the dollar lost 26% of its value, which caused exports to grow faster than imports between 1987 and 1991, resulting in a large decline in the trade deficit.
AND GUESS WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE AMERICAN WORKER? WORKERS WILL HAVE TO WORK LIKE DOGS—THEY WILL PRODUCE MORE AND MORE AND MAKE LESS AND LESS! AND YOU CAN THANK ALL THE POLITICIANS, REPULICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE, WHOSE ECONOMIC POLICIES SINCE THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN SETUP SOLEY TO BENEFIT BIG BUSINESS AND CORPORATE AMERICA! THE IDEA BEHIND globalization was to make the American worker on par with all other workers internationally, so that eventually your wages and benefits would be similar to workers wages in China and India. Don’t fret this won’t effect the lifestyles of CEO’S, they will still live quite well, but of course, it will be at your expense!
SO WHAT ASSESTS WILL WE SELL TO CHINA? MAYBE THEY ARE INTERESTED IN BUYING THE WHITE HOUSE, THE U.S. CAPITOL OR THE PENTAGON? WHY NOT BUY ALL THE FEDERAL BUILDINGS, SINCE EVERYONE INSIDE OF THEM, HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR SOULS TO BIG BUSINESS! LET’S PUBLICLY AUCTION ALL AMERICAN ASSESTS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! ISN’T THAT WHAT OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT BELIEVES ANYWAY, THAT ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS SHOULD BE PRIVATIZED?
GLOBILIZATION HAS NOT MADE CHINA A DEMOCRACY—IT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST DICTATORSHIPS IN THE WORLD!
Last week there were Senate hearings about Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and how they are being used by the Chinese government to suppress Chinese citizens. Most of main stream media was absorbed with Cheney’s hunting mishap, so this news story was swept under the Oval Office carpet.
At a congressional hearing last Wednesday in Washington, legislators grilled executives from Google, Yahoo., Microsoft, and Cisco Systems Inc. about their role in helping China filter information or track down those who believe in free speech. Reporters without Borders, a Paris-based advocacy group, say 49 Chinese are known to be in prison for “posting on the Internet articles and criticism of the authorities.” There could be other, unknown cases. Asked at the hearing how many times Yahoo had turned in e-mail users to government authorities, Michael Callahan, a Yahoo lawyer and company executive, said Chinese law prohibited revealing such information—I guess, Michael now works for the Chinese Government.
Yahoo complied with a Chinese demand for e-mail information about journalist Shi Tao, who was convicted for e-mailing information about the government and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. China doesn’t make public the list of pages it blocks or filters, but Internet experts abroad say they number in the tens of thousands.
Most of the cyber-dissidents have been sentenced to jail by the Chinese authorities for posting comments on forums, creating websites, and for sending e-mails overseas. The official Chinese news media have often published reports on the arrest of Web users to impose fear on the Chinese audience. A Shanghai man was sentenced to a four-year jail term for trying to post a critical essay on the website of the People’s Daily. It was a pro-democracy essay on the People’s Daily Web page; there are many people who are in prison for posting things on the Internet.
China estimates that about 110 million of its people are using the Internet, second only to the number of Web users in the United States. But there is a “digital apartheid†that controls what anyone can say on the Chinese Internet. China is the world’s largest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents. Most authoritarian regimes try to control what their citizens read and do on-line, but China is far and away the world champion. . . . It’s one of the few countries that have managed to block all material critical of the regime, while at the same time expanding Internet facilities.
SO THOSE BILLIONAIRE YUPPIES WHO OWN GOOGLE, MICROSOFT AND YAHOO AND ARE CONSIDERED SO HIP AND SO COOL, DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANTHING EXCEPT THEIR BILLION DOLLAR EMPIRES! THEY LOOK FOR CHEAP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHINESE GRAD SCHOOLS, SO THAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO PAY AMERICAN WORKERS A DECENT WAGE, AND THEN THEY USE THEIR SOFTWARE TO REPRESS CHINESE FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE U.S. CITIZENS WILL SHARE THE SAME FATE AS THE CHINESE CYBER-DISSIDENTS!
WILL OUR FINANCIAL DEBT TO CHINA CAUSE US TO FORSAKE OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES?
Debts and lies are generally mixed together. Francois Rabelais
Crooked schemes will end by overwhelming their authors and coadjutors in disgrace, and… he alone who walks strict and upright, and who, in matters of opinion, will be contented that others should be as free as himself, and acquiesce when his opinion is fairly overruled, will attain his object in the end.” –Thomas Jefferson
” Speaking of loathsome Clintonites. Check out this story on ex-Cabinet member Donna Shalala. A 9,000 square foot residence?”
Colleges operate like all profit making corporations –they grossly overpay their CEOs. Parents struggle to pay college tution while presidents of universities make $500,000- 1,000,000 a year.
Donna Shalalais is very comfortable with her lifestyle and wants to keep it that way.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:30 am
True, as is the fact I just turned off C Span, where it looked like a group of loathsome ex-Clintonites were going to manage to shame the right into extending benifits re Katrina; a human disaster we have every reason to assume might have been half again less bad had our loathsome ex President still been in office.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 am
This fast turning into an anti-capitalist start addressing everyone as Comrads like he did with the wayout bunch?
“He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally†state-owned companies would not own US port operations.”
Consulting gig? Didn’t have one. They paid him for a speech and called on the phone out of the blue. He gave them an answer; free advice if you will, so this is just more piling for those with simple answers. That said a government agency of our own is my solution too. Business seems to work otherwise and Republicans hate government agencies.
The whitewater straw man flailed yet again. Yeah we’re really progressing nicely.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 am
“Clinton hatred, of course, is worthy of no such statutes of limitations, and to the blithering idiocy of the faithfull Clinton is still
guilty of the murder of Chandra Levy.”
Oh this is good. An absolute moron festival. Let the wild accusations fly. We are the great reasoned ones!
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:03 am
Ahmed, your basic point, that liberals are enjoying the fruits of some xenophobic arab-bashing is correct. After that, I can’t say I agree with you. You don’t even take a moment to consider whether or not having a foreign country with strong anti-american feelings among the citizenry managing our ports is a bad idea. I could still probably be convinced either way, but I do think it’s a serious issue and thought I could definitely do without the grandstanding and anti-arab rhetoric, I’m glad this deal isn’t just getting a rubber stamp.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 am
Eleanore,
Exactly how well has non-profit enterprise worked out?
Can you tell me about the number of lasting accomplishments of organizations that operate outside of the profit paradigm? (Was the Appolo project a lasting accomplishment? Did it operate outside the profit paradigm?)
Exactly how do you barter a shipload of grain? What about a planeload of laptop computers?
How many people have to starve to satisfy your drive for altruism?
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 am
“New evidence has emerged that key agencies of the United Arab Emirates may have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda. In May or June of 2002, al Qaeda officials wrote a letter to the UAE government claiming the emirates were “well aware†of the infiltration.
The letter, translated by the United States Government, is publicly available on the website of the West Point Combating Terrorism Center.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/aq-infiltrated-uae/
PDB 2006:
Al Qeuda determined to provide security in the U.S.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 am
“turning our ports management over to the United Arab Emirates”
For a smartass you might try for getting the facts straight.
Repeat after me: DPW is buying a company that leases 24 out of 839 port terminals in 6 US ports.
The so-called right wing Fox was making the same mistake even today.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
If you would pause in your salivating that you caught up Bill Clinton yand read up on the news you would realize that he advised that the company go through the required congressional hearings for approval instaed of having it rushed through as your boy Bush tried to do! You ought to retractf your follishness at this point but are not likely to.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I just saw Wolf Blitzer read a letter from a major Israeli shipping company exec to Hillary. The letter laud Dubai PortsWorld for its perfect security record in handling Israeli cargo. He is also sending letter to Schumer and others.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
“required congressional hearings”
CFIUS process does not involve congressional hearings and there is no evidence that Bush was trying to do anything except comply with the law.
“You ought to retractf you follishness at this point are not likely to” [sic] Pot meet kettle!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Here’s the letter.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
I’m kind of thinking the opposite of Marc.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Mavis, demonstrating a profound ignorance of just who gets to unload cargo at US ports: “…You don’t even take a moment to consider whether or not having a foreign country with strong anti-american feelings among the citizenry managing our ports is a bad idea.”
You mean like Britain? the P&O Steamship company is a British company. I seem to remember (despite Tony Blair), very large anti-US demonstrations in Britain in the run up to the Iraq War.
I’m predicting that Marc is wrong and that this port deal will go through in th end.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“What is it with Republican presidents that their press people need to constantly assure the public that the Leader o’ the Free World is “engaged” or “understands” or “reads”? ”
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/small-man-in-tiny-room-before-big.html
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
How many people have to starve to satisfy your drive for altruism? “
Patrick,
One of the most disturbing and extraordinary aspects of life in this very wealthy country is the persistence of hunger. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports, based on a national U.S. Census Bureau survey of households representative of the U.S. population, that in 2004 11.9 percent of all U.S. households were “food insecure” because of lack of resources. Of the 13.5 million households that were food insecure, 4.4 million suffered from food insecurity that was so severe that USDA’s very conservative measure classified them as “hungry.”
Since 1999, food insecurity has increased by 3 million households, including 1.4 million households with children. In 2004, 38.2 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity, compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999.
Hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food. When “hunger in America” is discussed, people are referring to the recurrent and involuntary lack of access to sufficient food due to poverty or constrained resources, which can lead to malnutrition over time. In some developing nations where famine is widespread, hunger manifests itself as severe and very visible clinical malnutrition.
In the United States hunger manifests itself, generally, in a less severe form. This is in part because established programs help to provide a safety net for many low-income families. While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low.
The mental and physical changes that accompany inadequate food intakes can have harmful effects on learning, development, productivity, physical and psychological health, and family life.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
The families can all get food stamps if they so choose. It’s a pain. I’ve done it before.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Well then, maybe Fox TV should make a public anouncement tonight, notifying 38 million poor people to run down to their local welfare office and get a bunch of food stamps. And maybe the homeless from Karina can get some housing and a decent paying job.
If all these benefits are available then we have no problem–we are living in a utopia; right Mark–that’s why you can’t find a job.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Empire against Itself
by Jon Flanders
“Third-rate men, of course, exist in all countries, but it is only here that they are in full control of the state, and with it of all the national standards.” — H. L. Mencken
Hard on the heels of the Cheney hunt for Republican lawyers, we now have the Great DP-World Port Controversy.
Democrats like Hillary Clinton and even some Republicans are in full posture mode, asking “tough” questions about the “Arab takeover” of the homeland’s ports, which will allegedly have us moving Bin Laden’s dirty bombs into the country in containers at the connivance of United Arab Emirates (UAE) cargo managers.
This has given George Bush the opportunity to posture himself in turn, as the staunch defender of Arab rights, holding the line against a bunch of anti-Muslim opportunist politicians.
Truly this is a carnival worthy of Mencken’s pen.
There are serious military, economic, and political interests at stake, however.
Click on the map for a larger view.
Hormuz
SOURCE: Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, The University of Texas at Austin
Click on the chart for a larger view.
Persian Gulf Oil Exports by Route
SOURCE: Energy Information Administration, “Persian Gulf Oil and Gas Exports Fact Sheet,” September 2004
The United Arab Emirates is located directly across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. In fact, the UAE has an ongoing dispute with Iran over the ownership of three islands in the strait, the key chokepoint for world oil shipping which transits 13 million barrels per day, more than 30% of the total oil shipped on tankers daily and nearly 90% of Persian Gulf oil exports. This makes it incredibly important to Pentagon strategists.
The UAE produces around 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, which, at current world prices, gives its rulers the cash to buy boatloads of military equipment. 80 US F-16 fighters are currently being delivered to the UAE. These fighters and other UAE military buys are paid for in hard currency.
Indeed, the UAE is one of the few countries in the world that is running a trade deficit with the USA.
Boeing is in the midst of lucrative contracts current and future to sell the UAE state-of-the-art passenger planes. According to Boeing’s VP for sales Lee Monson, “[W]e had great orders last year from Emirates for 42 aircraft as well as new orders from Egypt, Libya and Pakistan.” Boeing faces hard competition from Airbus in the UAE and the region.
Then there is energy. While the UAE’s oil production shows signs of decline, it is noted for its light crude, which is easier to refine and thus highly prized. The US oil industry has stakes in it. To take just one example, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company brought in ExxonMobil in June 2004 as a strategic partner to develop the Upper Zakhum field, giving it a 28 percent ownership stake.
So, with the UAE’s strategic geographical location in the event of a military showdown with Iran, its oil revenues giving it purchasing power for US military and aviation hardware, its aging oil infrastructure seeking aid from companies like Exxon, and its investors providing the capital for the venerable UK P&O port management firm, we can see that it is a key player in the scheme of things in the Middle East, a player that the US imperium can ill afford to alienate.
The psychotic, chauvinist, and racist atmosphere created in the US after September 11, however, tempts politicians of both parties, particularly Democrats who want to appear stronger and more right-wing on “homeland defense” than Bush. Their paymasters in the boardrooms may soon remind them who pays the bills. I suspect that, as this realization sinks in, the Democrats will quietly shelve their rhetoric and get with the imperial program.
Such are the contradictions at work in the US today. The poison in the domestic political atmosphere necessary for wars of aggression like Iraq suddenly threatens to trip up billions of dollars of potential business. It’s another sign of an empire in decline, with the parties in charge unable to shoot any straighter than VP Cheney after a three-cocktail lunch.
Jon Flanders
Jon Flanders is a member and former president of IAM LL 1145 and a member of the Troy Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Comment | Trackback
MR
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Meanwhile…back in Free Iraq and occupation without end…
New Iraq Reconstruction Funds Devoted Solely to Prisons
In other news, the State Department quietly announced this week it has requested $100 million dollars for Iraqi reconstruction – all of it for prisons. The Bush administration initially promised $20 billion dollars to reconstruct Iraqi infrastructure. But much of the money has been diverted to security. State Department Iraq coordinator James Jeffrey said the $100 million dollar prison project was the lone new reconstruction effort the US government will undertake over the next year.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
From Perrin:
The lib-Dem arm flapping over the Dubai Ports deal is one of the more opportunistic, cynical and asinine displays of late, which is to say that it’s perfectly in line with what passes for American political discourse. The libs are dying to prove how “anti-terror” they are, how they, unlike the GOP, are the “real” guardians of American lives and property. From Daily Kos to Air America to Hillary Clinton to lib bloggers, trolls and squawkers in between, “Portgate” is all the rage, an opportunity to flex their fantasy muscles and jump on the Arab-bashing bandwagon. And just to make sure that this present state of mind is clearly understood by all the Right People, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Mr. Progressive himself, while speaking before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs yesterday, said, “Today we see the specter, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, of a company who is about to take over American ports, which actively continues today to boycott Israel.”
Well, I guess the Israeli state will have to squeeze by on the measly billions the US pumps into its coffers every year.
Of course, this rabid yowling has nothing to do with “national security” and everything to do with taking full advantage of a political opening, using the very xenophobic weapons that are part of the reactionary arsenal. Not only does this remind us that the War on Terror is a crock, it emphasizes all too well that no real opposition to the corporate status quo exists, at least in the ownership parties. Instead of examining the business-as-usual aspect of the Dubai Ports deal, and how the American ruling elite and their political lackeys benefit from such global financial arrangements, liberals prefer to fan nativist flames for domestic political gain, especially in a mid-term election year. Over the past few days, lib radio talker Ed Schultz has giggled and guffawed about how the Dems are poised to re-take the House and Senate this November, and how the Dubai debacle is one of the driving forces behind this potential electoral swing. In other words, the Arab booga-booga can work both ways and for the same purposes — power, influence and control.
But what is truly amusing in all this pretend uproar is the heroic posture of those who don’t want to deal with a state boasting “terrorist” ties. Whatever involvement the United Arab Emirates has in aiding terrorism, it doesn’t approach the violent level of, say, Israel, or Turkey, or Colombia, or even — gasp! — the United States. Yet you’ll never hear mainstream libs making this much noise over arms sales to these and other countries. Indeed, when the Clinton admin sold the UAE 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters in 1998, I don’t recall any outrage from the lib corner or concerns that their idol Bill Clinton was aiding and abetting “terrorism,” and this was at the very moment when the UAE recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, one of the criminal indictments that libs today are hurling at that oil nation while attacking the ports deal. (Arms sales was just one of the chummy features of Clinton’s friendship with the UAE.) And should the Dems do well this November and win the presidency in ‘08, does anyone seriously believe that business dealings with the sheikdoms will be radically altered or eliminated altogether? Please.
“Portgate” is yet another domestic political ruse that says nothing about the global corporate power structure that makes such deals inevitable, nor about what truly constitutes terrorism in the here & now. It’s simple, sleazy fear mongering, another reminder that the Dems and their lib mouthpieces have the same contempt for the populace as do GOP reactionaries.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Most people are concerned with non-war government spending. All Bush has to do is break-out the veto pen to smash his opponents in both parties.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:31 pm
The question regarding state owned firms shows how dense liberals are. No, the fact that Dubai Ports is owned by the UAE government would not support an argument in favor of management of the port terminals by the federal government.
First of all, P&O bid for the terminal management gig against other private sector companies and won the contract. Dubai Ports will acquire those contractual rights through its acquisition of P&O. If the US government formed a wholely owned subsidiary corporation to compete in that market place (like Dubai Ports) it would be different than the government operating the ports like it does the DMV.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Hey I didn’t say it was utopia. Far from it, but this program exists as a safety net. I can’t get a job because of age discrimination among other things. It’s also evidence that the white population is just as poor as the rest, yet we don’t that cry very often do we?
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:38 pm
“It’s also evidence that the white population is just as poor as the rest, yet we don’t that cry very often do we?”
Mark,
The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. The opposite pole to narcissism is objectivity; it is the faculty to see people and things as they are, objectively, and to be able to separate this objective picture from a picture which is formed by one’s desires and fears.” Erich Fromm.
Yes, ageism is a form of discrimination and should not be tolerated whether you are red, yellow blue or green—-the experience of older workers are invaluable; usually the reason they are not hired is because cheap employers feel that they will have to give higher compensation to older workers; it is easier to exploit a young inexperienced kid.
Of course, this problem is further compounded if you happen to be a female—most males who are in positions of power prefer being around sycophantic young woman.
But the basic issue which is paramount– is that we live in a culture that sets groups of people against each other so that we are so busing ripping each other apart over the few bones that are thrown our way that we stop being conscious of the scumbags that are controlling and exploiting the entire situation.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Agreed, Eleanor.
Classic divide-and-conquer strategy to distract Americans while the neo-cons pilfer and pawn our future.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Reg that was a decent rant but you didnt really address any of perrins substantive points did you? Im nit sure that the san fran mayor was even included in his text. And as for “scold” approach to politics you’re not really going to tell me that you actually believe that columbia and the Israel have better records on state sponsored teorror than uei are you. listen, im all for pragmatic approacahes to advance progressive political demands but now you sound like youre attacking people because they speak unpopular truths.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
“Of course, this problem is further compounded if you happen to be a female—most males who are in positions of power prefer being around sycophantic young woman.”
Well, since it is women who hire me and I work for in the US Government I would say from my prespective they had a decided advantage. Over me at least. Unless we’re talking Hollywood then we’re both in the crapper, but moreso women there.
“usually the reason they are not hired is because cheap employers feel that they will have to give higher compensation to older workers; it is easier to exploit a young inexperienced kid.”
I go for the latter. The money is the same for both, trust me. Newspapers are the cheapest employers there is. In government, the wages are the same for everyone at a certain grade.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
In didn’t see any points in the Perrin screed. Just the same sort of ad populum unsubtantiated by any “objective” view of the facts.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Ahmed, since Perrin didn’t consider it worth addressing the issue on it’s merits, I responded with a counter-rant against my pet peeves.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Reg thats a bit of a cop out isnt it. i mean issues dont only exist in their “own merits” but they often speak to much larger political truths. reread perrin for a nice dose of political clarity here
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
I like to take issues on their merits.
Incidentally, not that anyone should particularly care, but if you ever doubted that Roger L. Simon was one of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet, go read his current blog post on Senator Byrd.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
reg, I just don’t see how you can say with a straight face that liberals have more to offer than Greens. Except possibly for abortion, there isn’t a single issue that the rank and file are not willing to compromise their previous positions on (and of course, they never expect the same kind of compromise of their counterparts across the aisle). Selling the farm is not only bad politics, but it is an afront to traditional Democrats.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:57 pm
You’re right. Greens just have oodles to offer. What was I thinking ?
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 am
“Just the same sort of ad populum unsubtantiated by any “objective†view of the facts.”
Unsubstanciated..hmmm sort of like claiming there is a bank on every corner of inner city los angeles. and youve scoured those blocks too just in case anyone doubt your street credibility. ad populus, please, mr ignoramus
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:18 am
I’m not sure what Marc’s beef is with Clinton here. If Clinton does believe the Dubaians are good allies (whther he’s right or wrong) why is it ’slick’ to be advising them. Maybe it’s just dumb (or smart as the case may be). Though Clinton can in fact be quite slick, sometimes he’s not — his character is far from simple — though acknowledging that might that might be bad for the bloviation business. This seems like a lot of snark and attitude over nothing.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
False analogy. I proved the banks are there. Come to Los Angeles and see for yourself. Or read the yellow page link I posted listing them Ms. Jane you ignorant___. But then as you just told reg merit isn’t a concern of yours. I can see why.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 am
evets, let me spell it out for you: he has no beef; it’s more of a creepy obsession. The “plauge on both their houses” team been given a tough hand to play by the Bush years; you can smirk about Hillary employing cronyism in the travel office; but when Bush takes it to the Supreme Court or The Department of Homeland Security (destroying a major American city in the process) , some of us who actually DO value objectivity notice a diference. The Dems who voted to push back at Milosovitch made Cooper’s Hall Of Shame; Bush in Iraq? Leave the poor guy alone.
So any half chance to play gotcha with Clinton must be pounced on; however feeble.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:42 am
Wall -
I’m feelin’ you brother.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:16 am
If I read the article correctly, it says that the UAE called Clinton for advice. Clinton told them to postpone the deal for 45 days so it could be reviewed by Congress.
How is he being slick here? He did exactly right thing, in my opinion.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Mine too.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !nvj
September 24th, 2006 at 7:04 am
dubai…
Interesting post. I came across this blog by accident, but it was a good accident. I have now bookmarked your blog for future use. Best wishes. Dubai Prevailing Wind Website Team…..
December 8th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
castigate!nodding canton,Krakow eyed Augusta….
January 6th, 2007 at 3:46 am
vehicle blue book value…
Article looks interesting, some good thoughts…
April 16th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Your website is beautifully decorated and easily navigated. I have enjoyed visiting this site today and hope to visit many more times in the future.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:13 am
dogging slut…
Latest dogging slut news…
April 25th, 2007 at 12:41 am
teen suspender…
home | teen suspender | contacts…
May 9th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Obagi Blue Peel…
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….