Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 22, 2006

The Port Deal

When a British shipping and transport service company, like P&O, manages U.S. ports, nobody cares. But when Dubai World Ports buys P&O and now continues to manage those ports, all hell opens up.

The funny thing is to watch Democrats and Republicans united in fighting the deal against a Bush who, embedded in Middle East corporate interests, threatens to veto any attempt to stop it.

The mask of "terror protecting" comes off and his real face of "corporate money" is there to see for all.

I for one would argue against this deal. But like Soj, not on the grounds of any assumed terror danger.

I do believe that any monopoly-like infrastructure, roads, harbors, water and electricity networks etc., should always be owned and controlled by the state. To have these, even partially, controlled or managed by some private entity is renting out the right to collect taxes. We did away with that a long time ago for very sound reasons.

On the other side, Bush is right here in one serious point.

The U.S. has a trade deficit of some $700-800 billion per year. Americans give money to foreigners to buy their goods. But when those foreigners want to reinvest their earned US$ and get blocked, why would you expect them to continue to take Dollars?

If isolationism is seriously reviving, which I do expect, the US$ is overvalued by some 50%. How would doubling the price of raw materials and consumer products fare with the electorate?

There are three alternatives.

To continue a significant trade imbalances which will lead to the sharecropper society Buffet fears. Here the U.S. people will have to work indefinitely to pay the rent to foreign owners of U.S. productive means. The Dubai World Ports deal is part of this.

Second, isolationism with a high inflationary, Dollar dump period, leading over years to some more sustainable trade (im)balance. This will be payed for by the middle class or whatever is left of it and by foreign US$ holders.

Third, and very unlikely. A high tax environment that curbs U.S. consumption back to grade that nearly equals production within the U.S.

History tells us that the electorate and politicians will choose the short term benefit of alternative two without caring for the longer term consequences. The fight against the port deal is just a part of that game. Foreign investors will note this and act accordingly.

Posted by b on February 22, 2006 at 7:48 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

The argument I love hearing is that 'it wouldn't be a problem if this were a private Arab company, but this is a state owned company.' As if private companies, Arab or other, aren't more likely to be bribed or cut corners. It will be nice to see US logistics companies retaliated against for this. I don't know if they actually have jurisdiction on this, but it would also be nice if the WTO overruled the US barring the contract. This one is just fun to watch as they choke on the logic of the market.

Posted by: biklett | Feb 22 2006 8:32 utc | 1

Nice summation b,

Got my lawn chair and popcorn out for this one, as it shapes up to be the son of the Cheney shooting -- where ol' W takes aim at the republican leadership in the house. BOOM!!

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 22 2006 10:07 utc | 2

UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army

Interesting comment from the link above...

"I am surprised that nobody here has mentioned the most obvious connections — Treasury Secretary John Snow, and brand-spankin’-newbie-crony David Sanborn. Snow was formerly CEO of CSX. Sanborn was an executive with CSX/Sea-Land division. Then Sanborn left to become a director with Dubai Ports and brokered a deal for Dubai Ports to purchase the South American and Asia port operations from CSX. Now - just two weeks ago - Sanborn is introduced as the new Assistant Secretary of Transportation - Marine Administration. Then the quasi-secret “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” (CFIUS), which is chaired by John Snow, makes this ruling. Hullo - McFLY!"

Something doesn't feel right about this story, my intuition tells me this whole thing is, or will be a major distraction from some other nefarious shit. Perhaps, like the mexico tunnel story recently in the news.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 22 2006 10:45 utc | 3

Addendum:

BREAKING: Rumsfeld and Pace Not Consulted On Transfer Of Port Operations To UAE

Rumsfeld’s statement was particularly troubling because Dubai Ports World, owned and operated by the UAE government, will also take over a major contract managing the movement of military equipment for the U.S. Army. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, who was at the briefing, also said he found out about the deal over the weekend. The deal was approved on February 13.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 22 2006 11:41 utc | 4

Isn't Dubai one of those shining beacons of democracy and moderation that we are promoting in the Middle East? I sure hope so, I would hate to see control of US ports given over to a medieval shiekhdom whose interests are only superficially & tenuously connected to US interests.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 22 2006 12:14 utc | 5

Harold Myererson on this.

Great!

Wanna Buy a Port?

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 22 2006 13:06 utc | 6

Shame on You Bernhard and All You Rage-Filled People


You are helping to destabilize the world and the elites don't know how to handle it.

Naughty!Naughty!

This from an effete elitist, David Ignatious.


This link, I think you will see, also helps explain the port deal.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 22 2006 13:21 utc | 7

All the nonsense the US pols are spewing about the UAE and the ports should also be read as Arab hate:

the Arabs are taking over!

they’ll even control the ports!

we don’t even control our containers any more!

Something must be done!

Attack Iran!


Posted by: Noisette | Feb 22 2006 13:39 utc | 8

from Groucho's second link

The connected world is inescapable, like the global economy itself. But if we can begin to understand how it undermines political stability -- how it can separate elites from masses, and how it can enhance rage rather than reason -- then perhaps we will have a better chance of restabilizing a very disorderly world

am I the only one who sees a threat here? He kind of makes it sound like removing the internet would bring the elites and common folk back together again.

I have been saying for some time now that the internet as we know it, and I knew it in the beginning, will not be around much longer. That demonstration CNN gave with how Google works in China was one of the most frightening things I have ever seen. I asked myself, how would we know that the same thing is not happening to us?

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 22 2006 13:59 utc | 9

I share your concern dan of steele, because as I posted here,
I imagine if, and when, it gets to that point it will be to late anyway. Then the internet becomes your family, friends and
neighborhood. CB's and Ham Radio etc..

The Pentagon’s War on the Internet

The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap”, which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.

The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document which speaks of “fighting the net”; implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system."

I'd be interested to know if you can find the transcripts to the CNN report you speak of.

Also, see:

Bloggers Who Pursue Change Confront Fear And Mistrust
The Great Firewall of China : A Measure of Freedom,/i>

Posted by: | Feb 22 2006 15:22 utc | 10

grrr..sorry,
The Pentagon’s War on the Internet

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 22 2006 15:25 utc | 11

What I was referring to was a special report done by Mike Chinoy where he demonstrated in real time, search results done on the words Falun Gong. He had one computer hooked up to "our" internet and another to a Chinese provider. the article below speaks of the results but there were millions of hits on "our" internet and only a few thousand on the chinese one. All of the hits on the chinese side were negative toward Falun Gong and made the state look good. Truly terrifying to me.

By logging on to Google.cn - the new Chinese service - and searching for mentions of the banned Falun Gong movement on our website, no results are returned - although there is a note attached that, when translated from Chinese, does indicate that local policy and laws have affected the results.

from the Guardian

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 22 2006 16:16 utc | 12

Guys, I knew this Internet blogging thing was just a bit *too* anarchic for the modern postglobal economy, just like that crazy music they made in the 60's...

I guess we should just enjoy it while it lasts and someday, when we are released from prison, we can tell our grandchildren about how much fun we had accessing information and spreading our views without restriction, surveillance or fear of reprisal.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 22 2006 16:17 utc | 13

We'll be OK as long as we remain rugged individuals. If we ever start to ORGANIZE like Falun Gong, then comes the hammer. What the powers don't want is 'organized' opposition. I think the great Communism breaker was known as 'Solidarity'.

Posted by: pb | Feb 22 2006 17:09 utc | 14

This internet thing is great. Bloggers are great Thomas Paines. Trouble *is*, we have to find *you*.

Posted by: pb | Feb 22 2006 17:20 utc | 15

White House: Bush didn't know about ports deal until it was OK'd

Geeeez.

Posted by: beq | Feb 22 2006 17:27 utc | 16

So according to beq's USA Today article, Bush's cronies have painted him into another corner, and he cannot back down at this point. I think he needs another prolonged vacation...

Besides, Michael Chertoff assured us in his best "trust-me-I'm-from-the-federal-government" tone that there were security assurances, but he could not discuss them as they are "classified", which is often a euphemism for "massively politically embarassing if all the details come out".

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 22 2006 17:42 utc | 17

The whole interconnected or interdependency foriegn policy thing has been around forever and it is sometimes messy. The real concern is the macroeconomic structural displacement that occurs from the push and pull of population movements and disloaction of traditional lifestyles as refered to in the foriegn policy articles referenced above. There, thats a mouth full.

But the real issue is not when or if or why UAE is getting this port contract. It is the fact that through this deal Bushie and Rove have surrendered the tough on terra mantra. Cavorting with a country that had two 9/11 hijackers, facilitated the movement of uranium to Iran and Pakistan and banks that helped fund the 9/11 hijackers. This is the chink in the Bush armor the Dems have relished. They, the dems, jumped on this and the Rethug congress has no choise but to be just as rabid over this situation.

Bush and Rove now cannot run on the war on terra when they just ceded the high ground over this port deal. I love it. I can see the campaign ads now, stating how the Dems are the tough on terra party and GWB is willing to sell or security to the highest bidder so the Dems had to introduce legislation to stop it. Let the mid-term elections begin.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 22 2006 17:55 utc | 18

Either they don't know what they are doing, and the port deal shows the depth of sheer incompetence, in which case they should be turfed out of office...

Or they do know what they are doing, and the port deal reveals that they have been heretofore playing us for fools in their manufactured and very profitable game, 'war of civilizations', in which case they should be turfed out of office and charged with treason and war crimes...

I beleive the second scenario is closer to the truth.

Posted by: gylangirl | Feb 22 2006 18:06 utc | 19

The internet is just another example of mainstream communication (like the telephone, or before that, letters), for 90% dependent on State apparatus news-speak, commercial sites, and so on.

Moreover, it is essential to the business community, by now. Cutting it off would wreak havoc in business. And it would look very bad, dent the US image, rile people up, all that free speech stuff, which the US encourages, and China represses.

These are different responses to slightly different problems.

The Chinese are not yet living in a society of complete individual atomisation, where all that counts is competition and a fast buck - or yen. After da Commie past, they have not yet eradicated community, the idea that a soldered group has radical power, that a minority can impose itself, and win. In the US, no minority, splinter, idiosyncratic group can grab even a littel parcel of influence. Nuttin. Nada.

Well that is a bit rough, and not quite correct..

Falun Gong are indeed a threat to Chinese rulers. White supremacists, Buddhists, vegetarian anti-war Quakers, conspiracy theorists, in the US, do not represent a threat.


Posted by: Noisette | Feb 22 2006 19:41 utc | 20

Let's pretend that we are all good Republicans now.


Let's attempt to frame the port deal with some catchy words.

"Death" tax don't fit, but somone can come up with something.

Winner gets a photo-op with Joe Libermann, Joe Biden, or Hillary, and a $5 gift certificate from Micky D's.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 22 2006 20:06 utc | 21

Great post, b.

Snow has been the quiet one for a long time, bending over and taking it long and hard for Bush in a way that O'neill never would. Perhaps he's just proving he can give as well as he gets.

If this deal goes through, and we have a terrorist attack through our ports, even Madame Defarge will have trouble spinning her way out of it.

Maybe that's what's going on on some bizarre meta-level. Maybe some spook got wind that they were planning the next attack to come through our ports. So now this deal forces Bush to play his cards. Whichever way he decides, he becomes personally responsible for security through the ports. "<"/tinfoilhats">"

What they want to do with the internet is privatise it in a way that makes it too expensive for you and me to play around on, but leaves it open for the TransNationals.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 22 2006 20:59 utc | 22

Oh yeah, they will go for the sharecropper society unless the sheeple rise up to stop them. Baaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.............

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 22 2006 21:18 utc | 23

Some of the posts here are quite surprising. The ports deal is the logical extension of the economic situation that the US is in. Up until now overseas investment has worked the other way. One can take a trip around most countries in the Western world and see the huge chunks of infrastructure owned by US corporations. Often these prized national assets were bought at the bottom of the market with cash surpluses that US corporations had generated in foreign countries by running virtual monopolies shored up by the great misnomer 'intellectual property'.

The worm has turned and the US is in the shit and getting worse. They can't afford their huge 'hammer' the killing machine that has reduced so many consciousnesses back to water and a bunch of trace chemicals. Consequently overseas corporations are seeking to use their US surpluses buying up infrastructure, and now that's bad?

Anyone who thinks that an overseas owned corporation will behave differently to a US owned one, that is seek nothing more profound that next quarter's profit be better than the last one, just hasn't been paying attention. Smart people would recognise that the more investement Arab controlled corporations have in the US, the safer the US is from being damaged by Arab nations. Because now doing something that will disrupt the US economy will cause damage to the people who live in the emirates. That will lessen the chance of an organised attack on the US by Arab people.

Why wasn't it bad when the IMF forced a nearly bankrupt NZ to sell it's energy infrastructure to Con-Ed? Why wasn't it bad when Australia was forced to allow the US to 'invest' in all it's resources?

It's possible to go on and on about this but the point is that it is time for the US leadership to be upfront with the citizenry and explain that the days of getting another nation to offer up it's resources for a few million pieces of cotton rag are over.

Either climb in or opt out, but the notion that US citizens can tie up everyone's resources and when the 20th of the month comes around bluster and sabre rattle rather than pay up is a recipe for global disaster.

This is why I'm gobsmacked that someone would suggest at MoA that the demopublicans should regard the whole affair as an opportuntity for their 'team' to exploit.

All the demmopublicans need to do is come up with a trap play, a Cryuff turn, or a sliding defense and their team will win!

Too bad the 'victory' will turn to ashes as the demopublicans will have painted the US into a corner where their citizens want to consume but no one else will let them have the stuff to consume.

This because the US people are welchers.

We all know what happens next. The architects of this wonderful 'new' ploy which has been used time and time again in the US with exactly the same outcome each instance, will be too gutless to tell amerikans the truth. Why? Because then they might 'lose' the next game against the republocrats.

So they lie and get themselves out from under by appealing to amerikans' base instincts. They tell the nation that it is the other nations which have cheated them, but by god they're not gonna get away with it.

The hammer is dragged out once more. After a refurbishment, it is sent off to reduce another country's citizens to their constituent parts. Good one!

Can it be that even those intimate with the machine can't see the wood for the trees?

Maybe the US will pull off this scam one more time, but the chances are they won't. If they don't that will be a good thing for amerikans long term, because if they do, it will be one more crime to be avenged on the incredibly close day of reckoning.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 22 2006 21:26 utc | 24

Dialing for Dollars
Our afternoon movie today is Ha Ha Ha America.

Posted by: biklett | Feb 22 2006 21:57 utc | 25

Debs, Debs, Debs, if you think we have our heads up our ass your wrong. I don't like the imperialist pig US corps any more than anyone else. The selling out of our country is sick. But I do like this evil admin getting it stuffed up their shorts.

Are we broke and have to sell off assets? That could be the case. But in my mind, I will take the establishment Dems to the Bushites any day, any week, any hour. And if this UAE situation is the domestic debacle that ruins Bushies crediblity thats fine with me. I have resorted to just plain being outright mean. I am a liberal redneck and I can punch any conservatives lights out anytime. If this UAE is the knockout punch that takes Rove and company to their knees, so be it. This shit that beens going on on Bushies watch amounts to an all out war on US citizens and I'm ready for their fall.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 22 2006 22:05 utc | 26

maybe he's going to back out like he did with meirs and all the republican senators who opposed him get to go back to their districts and be heros. i know this is a long shot, but i just find it hard to believe they are going this far into the blantant greedy fool muck unless they are totally thumbing their faces at the american public because of diebold? wish i had time to read the whole thread, back to work

Posted by: annie | Feb 22 2006 22:14 utc | 27

Selling of US Assets is a foregone conclusion.

R'GIAP comments?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Feb 22 2006 22:44 utc | 28

Rawstory is reporting,
Former Senate chief Dole hired to lobby for Dubai port deal and don't miss Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal

Now we have conflicting reports that A) Bush did not know about the sale B) Rummy did not know about the sale till this past weekend, but sat on the Board that approved the sale on the 13th of february.

That means,

A) They are liars and the truth is not to be found in them.

B) See A.

C) I just have to reinterate, I suspect this story is a distraction from something more nefarious going on. Note: See A).

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 23 2006 0:39 utc | 29

hey, the Busheviks are doing just what every third world elite has been doing for centuries -- both under the guns of the colonising nations, and off their own bat out of myopic piggy greed. selling off the patrimony of the nation to line their own pockets or cover up for previous embezzlements. welcome to Comprador World.

did anyone *really* ever think they "wouldn't do it to their own people"?

Posted by: DeAnander | Feb 23 2006 1:11 utc | 30

What's the point in winning the battle and losing the war JDP? The dems get in power and are confronted with an economy in tatters. They have two choices. Own up, make the country bite the bullet or go to war on the slim chance they can keep the dice rolling one more time.

You know which one they'll pick, don't you JDP? It's the option the dems always pick. Despite their claims to 'liberal' ideals, all they really want is a chance to get their snouts in the trough.

So Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to war we go, but this time the army bozos say "listen prez Gore, we ain't gonna win no conventional war agin them Ay-rabs, lets nuke the greasy little boogers". They do and that is the moment the other nuclear powers (eg China and Russia) have been waiting for. The US is now offside with everyone. Bliar can maybe sell a bit of neo-colonialism, because that can be spun to the more optimistic sheeple as doing the victims a 'favour'.
But nuking people and trying sell it as 'bringing them freedom' is a long stretch far too long for any western govt outside amerika. You know I've got an idea that even the amerikan sheeple may choke on that one.

Regardless of the result the dems have made a huge move full of pitfalls, and for what?

It doesn't make the slightest difference to anyone whether the corporation that owns your docks is in Washington, Tehran, or Timbuctoo. They will all hire the same mealy mouthed slime bags to maximise their profits.

There maybe a slight advantage to them being controlled by some other cultures. The Chinese one comes to mind; managers are encouraged to think in decades not 90 day chunks. That and the bit above about foreign ownership may make whatever foreign nation the corporation comes from care about the long term success of the US economy.

That sure aint the case at the moment. The US won't/can't pay up and is now trying to take the dice home. We all know what happens after that, everyone decides to cut their losses and grab what they can outta the US while the going's good.

Get real the dems can't do what their supporters want. If they had shown any balls even up to 20 years ago they may have been able to, but not now.

If people want affordable healthcare, decent education and a retirement before 80, the only way that can be paid for with the huge deficit the US is running is to shift the money outta ships, bombs, guns n planes. Not just a bit, really big time.

Now nothing I have heard from any dem close to the national legislature would lead me to the conclusion they could /would even contemplate that so their 'win' would spell more of the same until the implosion.

But lets suspend disbelief and imagine that the dems do shift the money from dying to living.

There's 2 points of view to be considered; external and domestic.

Lets look at this from an external P.O.V. first. For the US to unilaterally disarm would require a brilliant statesman. I don't know how much time you've spent in foreign countries actually talking with the population, not the sleasebags who chat up tourists by telling them what they want to hear; but the asian, african, arabic, central american, south american and european versions of Joe Lunchbox. I have and while a lot of it is bluster from ordinary people who really don't want to hurt anyone, if the US just pulled back into it's own borders, without trying to make a square up with the rest of the world they have shat upon, there is a very good chance that some would come in search of their pound of flesh. I think that may put rather a quick end to that experiment nearly as quick as the end of that administration.


But let's imagine that somehow somewhere from amongst a mob of people who have devoted their lives to exploiting the amerikan culture; they do find someone who can get their head around the cultures of all the people from the societies I listed above.

How long before the putsch? There is no way that the greedheads are gonna sit around twiddling their thumbs while some commie liberal wet dream ruins their next quarter's projections.


What I am saying is that if amerikans have become so dependant on others 'doing for them', that not only can they not prepare and cook food from scratch, sew a button back on, or balance their chequebooks, they can no longer express themselves politically unless someone else does it for them, then the best way through this is to let the rethugs win.

Firstly because the dems will realise that if they can't win an election when the opposition is this dire they need to take a long hard look at themselves and secondly, that when the shit really hits the fan, $cams Ratchet effect could be thrown into reverse.

That is just as it takes a so-called lefty or liberal political force to bring a welfare state undone without a coup, it also takes a rightist, or conservative force to undo facism. If the rethugs were forced to undo the military industrial complex, not only would the greedheads who need it to be kept going have no-one to run to, the rethugs would have their finger on the pulse and be able to put out brushfires.

So everyone is pissed off with the rethugs and the dems know they have no support for moving right they move further left to outflank the rethugs.

This hasn't happened in the US since the late '20s but it has happened elsewhere. Voters blame the party that is in power when the shit hits the fan, not the party that the one in power tries to scapegoat by saying "They did it, we just got stuck with cleaning up the mess".

A fuck-up like the one about to happen to the US, won't be forgiven by the electorate for at least 2 election cycles.

If you really want your team to win the cup, rather than just score the next goal, they must play a much craftier game than the guilt-ridden greedheads who run the dems seem able to conceive.

I still maintain the best solution is to get a 'third force' up and running but maybe it is just 'too hard'.

If that is the case, allowing the dems to play a smart game would take a lot longer than setting up a third force to do the job, but eventually it may work.....helluva gamble though.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 23 2006 1:56 utc | 31

New Orleans?

I'll approach this from an angle other than security, since that's been hit already, and the horse has pretty much given up the ghost.

But... why in the blue blazes would anyone want to outsource ANY work in New Orleans internationally? I just left that area, which is where I grew up... the economy is a shambles, there's barely enough work for the tiny portion of the population that has returned and no work for anyone else who wants to come back. EVERY job in New Orleans needs to be held by a local person, and everything that possibly can needs to be given to local companies.

I'm honestly angrier about that than I am about any possible security problem. New Orleans is in a real 'sink or swim' moment, and the government keeps tying weights to its legs.

Posted by: Keith | Feb 23 2006 2:04 utc | 32

Nice rant Debs. I just must disagree with your overall assessment of the Dems. Why? Because I have plenty experience on the local level and as stated in another thread, there is a difference in the budget process and where money flows.

Your overall point about the Dems being corporate shills is well taken. Many of the greatest attrocities have happened under Dem preznits. But I will take the fallens angels that are dems to the devil himself represented by the Rethugs. The trend that was started in the 1970s and sold out the US citizen was not started in the halls of congress, the WH or any corporate boardroom.

Our current situation worldwide is foriegn policy started back in the Kissinger/Brezinski mode that promotes interdependence. This is CFR and Trilat shit, and don't give me that conspiracy theory crap. Those two organization run foriegn policy in the US and much of the world in it's many varients. As I said before, we need to vote out congress every two years for a while to send a message and break the foriegn policy elite hold. What these organization do is take educated at Harvard or other elite school persons, mold them as staffers in congress and then send them to the US hinterlands to run for congress. That way even the people coming from the hustings are shaped to elite thinking.

But, ultimately the whole system will have to fall before elites finally come to their senses. By that time people will be crashing the gates.

In the mean time, I will take the lesser devils to the devil himself.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 23 2006 2:18 utc | 33

But the real issue is not when or if or why UAE is getting this port contract. It is the fact that through this deal Bushie and Rove have surrendered the tough on terra mantra.

the bushites are between a rock and a hard place. the arabs have never been an international threat to us.but, we never would have gone to war had the illusion of threat not been present. we went in because of business, we're there because of business, and this latest fiasco is a rush job. a jumping the gun, and had they not run the terra mantra the last few years they could have pulled it off w/out a hitch.

clearly, the admin is selling off our ports/resources/whatever they can. we aren't a country we are an assimilation of corporations, at least thats what the elites think. then there's us, the little people, the one's disenfranchised. the one's separated from the global reality they want so much to operate in. the natives are getting restless. here and in the middle east. the transfer of the franchise to the UAE is in effect just another notch on the belt for the bushites. this corporation we are part of, do we really have any concept of the merging of these enities, the us, the uae the control of ports(isn't that the ultimate new orleans prize?)

the only hitch is that in order to proceed and bring the american people on board thus far has required an instalation of fear towards muslims, radicals they would have us believe. the juxtapostion is they have garnered the support of exactly the same version(tho different brand) of fundementalism, and the perpetuation of the myth they have spawned run headlong into their purpose now.

Smart people would recognise that the more investement Arab controlled corporations have in the US, the safer the US is from being damaged by Arab nations.

i'm afraid it would take years of deprograming to turn back the clock. maybe our very own supreme court can get people shittin in their pants about what version of fundementalism is our greatest national threat

Posted by: annie | Feb 23 2006 2:57 utc | 34

@DeA:

Am studying Spanglish at the local community college, 2 weeks in. Not quite up to speed.

Is this "Comprador World" sorta like "banana republic"?

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 23 2006 3:07 utc | 35

uncle

i'm with jdp on this - while i acknowledge the incipient racism - i want above all for this criminal administration to be whackeched - any which way

as you have pointed out in your researches uncle my old friends- the new emporers are holding so much american moot in their reserves - that a heated exchange within the central committee - could lead to the death of the american dollar & that is no bad thing

& of course yr right that these gansters have no hesitation in carrying their long war to their own people

the new new orleans will be a perfect example of the remodelled american city - with the burying perhaps literal burying of its inhabitants

their culture of greed is so contemptuous - that the seem to feel no shame at all in the ways they satisfy that greed

lenin once sd the capitalism would sell the very rope with which the revolution would hang it - are the ports another form of hanging rope

but are we surprised, really? their acts of criminality abroad & at home committed with the complicity of the whore media are at once the means to rub ur faces in the shit of their degradation & as paul craig roberts insistently points out reveal the utter weakness & inflexibility of an administration incapable of interpreting history, of understanding the present or of having visions for a future that is not drowned in blood

this is an administration that each week shows us how they like shooting each other in the head

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 23 2006 3:16 utc | 36

& as for devils, jdp, in this adminstration, you'd have to do triage work to separate - the diabolic from the purely dumb.

they have created from the three levels of their power - just another three circles of hell

& o! lordie - i don't want to get stuck in the one where scalia speaks wearily of men & laws

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 23 2006 3:22 utc | 37

"When a British shipping and transport service company, like P&O, manages U.S. ports, nobody cares. But when Dubai World Ports buys P&O and now continues to manage those ports, all hell opens up."

I think "nobody" knew it before. Now they do...And Arabs? (Even tho it's American managed.) A foot long turd has hit the fan. This 'may' be the news we have been waiting for.

Posted by: pb | Feb 23 2006 3:27 utc | 38

We don't have the whole story yet. Tyson Slocum, head of Public Citizen's Energy Prog., is researching the possibility that there's a specific quid for which this is the quo. He has documents from Chevron & US Trade Representative Office stating that top priority of "free trade agreement" w/UAE is to increase % of UAE oil & natural gas fields, "Am." oil cos. allowed to own & control. Currently, it's 49%. He suspects they being given "Am." ports in exchange for increasing this figure. (You can hear his rpt. on today's flashpoints.net).

Posted by: jj | Feb 23 2006 3:38 utc | 39

more self-inflicted wounds to the admin. that's likely the only way the empire will crumble - through the inertia of its own race to the bottom. not that there's nothing others can do to help accelerate its descent. perfect opp to stress how naked this emperor/empire are on nat'l security matters. esp after all the bullshit campaigning & budgeting. perfect opp to force everyone to see - actually see - what is really going on w/ these criminals.

but they're about to be flattened by a snowball that they can't spin away

also saw today that lapham's got the cover essay in the march issue of harper's mag - bush has to go pronto

Posted by: b real | Feb 23 2006 4:00 utc | 40

Jeez I never thought I'd see this level of jingoism at MoA. Talk about amerikan exceptionalism.

Wake up people. It doesn't make the slightest difference to the way the port is run. Work won't be outsourced. Transnational companies do this shit alla the time.

Next thing you'll be telling us that US corporatists are ideologically sound republicans!

They support the rethugs cause current rethug policy maximises their profit. When the dems are a better bet either because they are the only electable ones, or some factor in their policy means profits will be better the corporates will go back to supporting them.

eg Diebold, if the CEO of Diebold is a rethug heavy hitter it will be because that is in the best interests of his corporation. When it becomes in the interests of Diebold to be better connected to the dems than the rethugs either he will switch allegiance or more likely a sleeper in the upper echelons of the dems will be 'awakened'. Even in Haiti you can't steal a landslide. So if alla the people who last supported BushCo swap over for a self delusional 'change' Diebold who will be doing their own polling, will switch too. Why? because they can provide the major corporate backers with something that was never possible before 2002..Certainty!

Prior to the Diebold scam there was still an element of suprise attached to an election that has gone now.

Sometimes it feels like we're swimming in porridge here but maybe all amerikans are that naive.

They haven't had a lot of experience with foreign listed trans-nationals. Cause that's all they are. Usually the same crew of elites own these corporations whether they be listed in NY or Mumbai. In fact if Delaware wasn't so accomodating I get the feeling that most corporations would have moved offshore years ago. But they are funny that.

N.B. it isn't just fly by night corporations that incorporate in Delaware. 58% of the Fortune 500 list there including
Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp

WalMart

Visa

Amex

Dell

Sears

Wells Fargo

Sure their head offices can be anywhere, that's sorta my point though. If you need to sue them, regulate them or hold them accountable in anyway, it has to be done through the State of Delaware who protect these theives more rapaciously and effectively than the UAE govt could dream of. I doubt there's a single senator in the US who doesn't owe a big mob of favors to at least one Delaware registered corporation. So what? Well how about this: That often overlooked issue informs us that getting the federal govt to force the state of Delaware to make it's corporations accountable hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting up.

Yet amerikans are worried about a US corporation being bought by the UAE.

So maybe amerikans don't understand how capitalism really works. For years even intelligent amerikans have imagined that if a corporation is listed in New York it makes an appreciable difference to the lives of it's customers or employees than if it were listed in Teheran. Well it doesn't. Remember what we came across looking at the way that the 14th? amendment had been perverted from ensuring all amerikans had rights?

Something about if a corporation behave in a way that may be considered to be charitable and doesn't screw every last cent out it can, the corporations executive can be held legally accountable for this failure.

How many MoA-ites can remember when the congress did it's 'chicken little sky is falling' number in the early 80s?

Why? Shell or BP or both were buying up independent gas station chains. Ronnie got slapped for it maybe Jimmy I can't remember now but nothing happened as soon as the other party whipped up some credible opposition to the deal, they just stuck out their paw for a share of the largesse and approved the deal.

Remember when Sony took over movie and recording studios to become the biggest content providers in the world? Same deal but can anyone show me what it is that Sony/BP/Shell do that is worse or more rapacious than Warners/Mobil/Texaco?

I wish I could find a net site that listed the stages of transition for a transnational.

It is japenese corporate theory outta of the US ie invented in the US never properly applied so implemented really successfully by the japanese.

Anyway it explains the stages of attachment to it's biggest markets/clients that a transnational corporation passes through and at no time is there a 'screw the market, the clients, and shit on them from a great height' stage.

The reason is simple enough when you think about it. If a corporation's management did that; apart from betraying it's shareholders and all being tossed out on their ear, the CEO, CFO, Prez and all 57 VP's wouldn't make their bonus that year. No stock options, no bragging rights, no fun.

Anyway I'm gonna think about something that really matters.

e.g. something really dodgy happened in Iraq over the last 72 hours and the truth on that will be very murky indeed.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 23 2006 9:36 utc | 41

you make very good points DiD

However, as others have pointed out before it is fun to attack the cabal and use their own words and propaganda against them. Some dimwit sent me a clipping from NewsMax or similar screaming that Harry Reid suggested Halliburton run the ports. I find that a fairly clever move on the part of Reid. It would force Cheney to publicly say that Halliburton is not good enough for the job, it would (if passed by the people's deputies) be vetoed by w. How would the echo chambers spin this to make it bad? Who could possibly take a stance against a US company doing port management over a foreign one?

Yes, something big and bad happened in Iraq yesterday. whodunnit? that is the question of the day.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 23 2006 10:51 utc | 42

Well said Debs,

which is I suppose amounts to a generalized reasoning -- the fact that so much of the US economy has already been globalized -- happens to also be the reason this little escapade will not escape its bounds, and remain a tribal language squabble. An academic bridge to far for the average american, least they know what has been done. So Bush is trapped between the middle east xenophobia sowed to promote the WOT and the economic reality front he is beholden to in that effort. So for me, thus far, its lawn chair, popcorn, and beer and a cock fight, which after spending some time reading through the lgf comments on the subject, its safe to report that the chicken feathers are flying in a righteous cloud of discontentment.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 23 2006 10:54 utc | 43

Bush's biggest tactical mistake here was to shrug off criticism and immediately threaten a veto to any Congressional intervention. Had he taken the tack of "I understand your concerns, let's work together to resolve them and clear this matter up", he might not have found himself in such a quandry.

I am also reminded of a line from a popular post 9/11 country song that went something like "I'm just a simple man/ I don't know the difference between Eye-raq and Eye-ran".

I think a lot of Americans will have trouble with the incredibly nuanced notion that some Aye-rabs are towelheaded terrorists and mullahs who want to tell us what kind of cartoons we can publish while others are reliable enough to be trusted with America's strategic infrastucture.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 23 2006 14:41 utc | 44

From the New York Daily News:

That giant sucking sound you hear is one really big mob of congressional Republicans evacuating their side of the aisle en masse and galloping over to agree with their left-coast colleagues as fast as they possibly can that the summary selloff of U.S. port operations to Dubai is your basic bad idea. Why, this whole heretofore sorrowfully rent nation has suddenly just come together as one. The day you've got Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton and Denny Hastert and Harry Reid voicing exactly the same concerns practically word for word is the day it can be said that President Bush truly is a uniter and not a divider."


New York Post:

" 'DUBAI DUBYA' IN DOCK SHOCK" screams the headline

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 23 2006 15:03 utc | 45

Where, oh where are Rove's fingerprints in this? Can he be this distracted?

Posted by: beq | Feb 23 2006 15:52 utc | 46

Wow. Great Thread. Like old times. Everyone making so many good points here, so I won't pick out individual posts here except to say "good to see you back," to jj.

A few points. Yes, this is no different from a corporate view than a McDonalds on the Champs Elysee. But nobody here on this blog is in favor of that kind off Transnational sprawl; and we since we protest that, we are entitled to also protest this. Also as anti-Washington Concensus, we are entitled to advocate for the re-publicizing--that is, making public again, and hence more democratically accountable--national services that have been privatised and de-unionized. This is the time to stand up and scream about this.

Second, I think part of the outrage is simply because this event is bringing the deep hidden structure of things to light for the dim sheeple. The average sheepling doesn't have a clue about how things work, and probably dimly remembers Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront" as a model for the docks. For the ignorant, and even for us as we well know, knowledge equals fear. Sheeple are bred to believe that they have unlimited free will and free choice. Even dimly perceiving the underlying corporateness of life raises unsettling doubts. I think most of the herd would be in favor of making this service public again. This, of course greatly scares the herding dogs, which leads to out-of-controlled yelping.

Finally, the question arises, just as it did after 9-11 when the media would not shut up about Al-Quaida having a 'dirty bomb', why they are employing the '2% inspection rate' fear card again. Fear is also amenable to the ratchet effect.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 23 2006 16:02 utc | 47

All that matters to the American elite is the free flow of capital and selling off of American Assets to forestall the debt collapse. All clearly more important than any hyped-up Islamic Fundamentalist’s threat that won the 2002 and 2004 elections for the GOP.

Very interesting discussion of the separation of the Middle Eastern elite from the Islamic hoi polloi and the resultant rise of religious parties that win any freely run elections. The exact same Phenomena is occurring in the USA except so far through lies, propaganda and fear the GOP has successfully ridden the religious tiger. As the middle class collapses in the USA; sooner or later, the religious right will turn around and swallow the GOP elitists riding on their backs.

Posted by: Jim S | Feb 23 2006 18:05 utc | 48

@ Jim S:

They've already swallowed the Air Force and control of our nukes. We live in interesting times.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 23 2006 18:32 utc | 49

What if, as in so many corporate takeovers, Dubai's first action will be to jettison its least profitable units? US east coast ports don't get a lot of Asian container trade. All of P&O's other terminals are Pacific based and are the money makers.

Posted by: | Feb 23 2006 20:35 utc | 50

I agree Malooga, this thread has been great discussion.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 23 2006 21:50 utc | 51

If the company buying out the ports is going to jettison the least profitable units, it will do so no matter what country it comes from. The Ay-rab thing is a furphy.

I think that given the nature of the atrocities committed on the non-Jewish semites by the West, in particular the USA, a much more sensible use of this issue is to educate amerikans that arabs are the same as anyone else. Good people peppered with a few bad mainchancer corporate types.

People want to criticise the buyout of public utilities, fine do so, but do not do it xenophobically ie anti foreign ownership and especially not racially ie anti arab.

If BushCo are attempting in their own twisted fashion and for their own twisted motives, to show Arabs are OK, I'll support them on that because the fact that amerikans returned these assholes to power in 2004 is amazing and slightly evil. (and yes Annie Diebold may have done a bit but there is no getting around a significant number of US voters did support BushCo.)

So part of the price amerikans have to pay to get their heads around the fact their actual role in the world is no better and no worse than anyone elses' is that their ports are privatised, it is a very small price to pay in comparison to the million or so arabs murdered by US hegemony in the last decade or so.

Especially when you consider that the ports are privatised whether or not the emirates are the owners.

I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that by objecting to the sale they may be helping BushCo and their mates out.

The ports are already owned by the English and Chinese through P&O, they put it on the market and the best price is offered by the Emirates who have zillions sitting around that need to be invested long term to ensure they don't suffer the fate of most nations whose resources have been exploited by foreign powers. That is one week chicken (cash coming in everyone happy) next week chickenshit (it's all run out, and all the 'great deals' your friends from the foreign power sold you, that you haven't seen for a while have turned out to be worthless) See Nauru for a textbook example.

Anyway some of BushCo mates want the ports but they don't want to pay top dollar. BushCo make it look like a sale to the Arabs will go ahead, everyone jumps up and down, sale is reluctantly cancelled, assets are suddenly worth a lot less because no overseas corp wants a bar of them.

That leaves BushCo mates payin 30 cents on the dollar and no-one can accuse BushCo of breaching WTO agreements, Hell he went into bat for them. He doesn't have to face another election and since every other rethug crawled out from under their rocks to oppose him there isn't a particular swing against them.

They call that checkmate don't they.

Caused by kneejerk reaction based on prejudice, or 'rooting for the team'. "Go dems go kill more towelheads for Gore. Rape more virgins for Obama or Harry, (Tom?... Dick? no that's a pun lol)"

Posted by: | Feb 23 2006 23:15 utc | 52

Apologies. For those who didn't recognise the style, well lack of style, that last post was a Did

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 24 2006 0:02 utc | 53

@Debs:

We are just having a little fun with the issue. And there is some racism involved in it, nationally.

I'm sure that there's no racism where you come from. Pristine pure and all that.

Thanks for explaining America to us. Your take is always amusing and instructive.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 0:57 utc | 54

lou dobbs on cnn is pointing out carlyle and other bush family connections to the deal. also, if you check out the home page there is video of the reception bush got in michigan today.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 1:09 utc | 55

perhaps the new great bodhisattva-mahasattva - -the little buddha from bara ram bomjon - can bring peace before bush takes us full speed back to barbarism

& knowing yr interest b, in buddhism i am wondering what you are thinking of this siddharta

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 24 2006 1:21 utc | 56

I think that given the nature of the atrocities committed on the non-Jewish semites by the West, in particular the USA, a much more sensible use of this issue is to educate amerikans that arabs are the same as anyone else.

sentences like this inspire me to skip the post.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 1:47 utc | 57

yep. them arabs are not the same as anyone else. we should keep the arguments simple - just like Ann Coulter does.

"Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?"
- Ann Coulter

Posted by: DM | Feb 24 2006 2:47 utc | 58

Agreed DM:

Wouldn't want to confuse anybody here with a nuanced discussion of real issues.

Heaven forbid. Much better to play stereotypes.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 2:56 utc | 59

Agreed DM:

Wouldn't want to confuse anybody here with a nuanced discussion of real issues.

Heaven forbid. Much better to play stereotypes.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 2:57 utc | 60

Last was to indicate hearty agreement.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 2:59 utc | 61

well if it isn't rascism perhaps someone could explain why the concept of arabs owning your ports is so bad. Remember no one said a word when the Brits and then China owned P&O.

Let's all pretend that the current mess that amerika has created throughout the middle east which resulted in some people from that area getting so pissed off with the US that some did a real evil and stupid thing(heh no that's not right! They didn't. BushCo did that. Arabs aren't even allowed to be effective warriors in the fantasy world of exceptionalism) that the people of the US had no qualms about blowing the bejesus out of two Muslim countries, neither of which had anyone involved in 9/11. That isn't racism or religious bigotry.

If it isn't what is it?

The US didn't single out Iraq and Afghanistan cause they are mean angry assholes who hate arabs? Then they did it cause they are mean angry assholes who hate everyone. Is that the answer? I don't know. Why is it that every other over-developed nation has pretty much comes to terms with itself and doesn't tend to get involved in wars anymore(a couple of exceptions) but the US does. Oh that's right it's BushCo's fault.

Hang on. Wait!
This shit was going on long before W was a glint in Poppy's eye! So Dubya may well be a lying greedy piggy eyed asshole; but it's a bit much to blame all 200+ invasions of foreign nations that the US has committed, solely at his feet.

Now I may be wrong about this Groucho, given that apparently my attempts to study US history don't count because I'm not amerikan, but I've an idea that the demopublicans may have been in charge of the US administration when many of these invasions and murders and rapes and tortures and thefts (all the nice things that go with every war, amerikan or not) took place.

Groucho do try not to be so pointlessly irrelevant. Of course there is racism here as there is everywhere in the world esp where whitefellas have seen a potential dollar. In the 21st century most over-developed nations don't allow racism give them an excuse to bomb the bejesus out of somewhere though.

Sometimes bringing a few facts to the party is a good counter to a debate rather than a bitchy little aside such as this. Or is it all facts you loath, not just those discovered by non-amerikans.

Many corporations from many different societies have bought, sorry 'invested', in NZ assets. If anyone tried to block a corporation because they were owned by such and such a people nowadays they would get short shrift.

My aunt never really got over the fact her husband died of malnutrition and malaria building a railway in Thailand.

They had just got married. He was a mining engineer and went up to Malaya to manage the mine for a couple of years before coming back to NZ with a little nest egg (if he had made it doubtless he would have copped a few tirades from me about colonialism, years later) anyway that didn't happen; and after the English army and airforce ran like scared rabbits back to Singapore he and his little band of resistors got caught by the Japanese and shipped to Thailand. You know the rest. That James Clavell fella, who had much the same happen to him, sold many stories on the subject.

Anyway after that huge digression. By the late sixties Japan had NZ and Australian money to burn and wanted to invest it here. Exactly the same as the Emirates situation with the US. There was a fierce debate because the diggers, (returned servicemen) were pretty much in control of the community. As my aunt said; "I hate what they did. But if I hate them we'll just fight once more for the same thing to happen again".

The Northern Australians had a similar problem. Worse because they had been bombed by the Japanese yet they reached that conclusion as well.

I don't hold any amerikan outsida BushCo personally responsible for the deaths US aggression has caused. I do hold amerikans collectively responsible though. If MoA-ites from the US make the mistake of thinking that cranking up this issue is a good way of getting at BushCo, then I'll include them in as well.
Just a quick word about collective responsibility. It's not something to beat people over the head wit, in fact that's not the point of it at all.

Collective responsibility is about getting societies to acknowledge where they have blown it. The purpose for it is to assist societies to see where they made a mistake so they can 'take ownership' of the problem and endeavour not to repeat the mistake.

To me it's the same as why I hate the death penalty. When a society murders someone because that person has killed others, they are preventing that society from considering it's role in the crime.

That the end (getting rid of BushCo) justifies the means, (playing on and cranking up the arabs = terrorist paranoia), bullshit is pretty much the way any elite plays upon the ignorance of incorrectly informed people to get what they want. I guess I just expected better of some of the people here.

And Annie I'm at a loss to understand how saying that it would be smarter to use the ports issue positively (eg to educate amerikans about Arabs in a good way) is so tiresome that it makes the post unreadable.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 24 2006 4:58 utc | 62

Parading her ignorance with all the arrogance of a wealthy dowager flashing her diamonds, Arianna doesn't even begin to realize that her polemics could have dangerous – and even deadly – consequences. By ratcheting up the atmosphere of hate and hysteria that has characterized the relations between the Arab world and the West in recent weeks, she is lining up with the War Party. In open alliance with neocons like Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, and the National Review/Weekly Standard crowd, Huffington and her fellow "progressives" are poisoning American politics to the point that "World War IV" – the wet dream of every neocon – becomes a distinct possibility.

stupid Democrats

Posted by: DM | Feb 24 2006 6:44 utc | 63

Just wondering here.....but if all of this is being funnelled straight back to investors (ie. the Carlyle Group), why is it not called money laundering?

.

Posted by: RossK | Feb 24 2006 7:19 utc | 64

COMPRADOR

# a person who works during peacetime against the interest of his own country in the service of a foreign entity, corporation or government. Such a person during wartime is known as a traitor. Also known more politely as a collaborator. It is a person who makes himself rich by selling out his country to foreigners.
www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm

# A comprador is an intermediary or a go-between. More specifically, it could mean a person of South East Asian origin employed by foreign establishment to serve as an intermediary in their dealings in that country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador

but surely you don't really need someone else to do your googling for you Groucho...

and what's with the "Spanglish"? is there really a class in Spanglish the patois or is this some kind of oblique bitchiness which I'm too tired to parse? seems like someone's been to sniper school...

Posted by: DeAnander | Feb 24 2006 7:23 utc | 65

Just checked the horoscope to see what all this bitchiness is all about. Can't figure it out.

And boy, Justin sure is bitchy about Arianna. Seems like he could hold his own in a cat fight. A good half of his article was name-calling. He doesn't like that Arianna has changed her political views over the years. And he certainly doesn't like the fact that she has more diamonds then him.

But mostly, as an libertarian ideologue, he doesn't like anything standing in the way of what he perceives to be "free trade." Just what the world needs is about 10 more NYC-like conurbations standing in the middle of the desert, with ecological footprints like Sasquatch. Anyway, debs is correct that this is really just a financial transaction; that, like over 2/3 of what is termed "free trade", no goods or services actually are traded.

So, what we have here is a lot of financial shenanigans. Justin seems pretty certain that he knows just where all these high-rollin playas stand. Good for him. To me, the true machinations, besides the obvious motivation for immeadiate profit, are opaque. I think even Gary Webb would have a hard time sorting this one out.

But one thing I do know: Whatever Bush wants, I don't. His interests and mine are diametrically opposed, and its more likely that a kissed rattlesnake will turn into a real Texas oilman, than that Bush would change his masters.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 24 2006 8:16 utc | 66

@malooga That's fine but opposing what BushCo want by exploiting the overblown unjust anti-arab hype is still inexcusable. Oppose on the grounds that you do oppose it on. Why join in on the libelling of Arabs?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 24 2006 9:49 utc | 67

Just now offered delay of "control'" transfer reportedly won't affect the money and liability transfer dates, so is irrelevant to the real purpose. The key isn't who's buying (whoever it ends up being is screwed) but who's selling, i.e. the soon-to-be-former owners of The Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

The fact is, whoever ends up holding those port contracts will own dead wet potatoes in our 6 ports and London very soon.
 
 Google the 9/23/04 Nature piece "Glaciers Are Flowing Faster". You can  also google Science 9/24/06 "A Bit of Icy Antarctica is Sliding Toward the Sea" and the Independent/UK 2/2/05 "Dramatic Change in West Antarctic Ice Could Produce 16ft rise in sea level". Boston Globe 2/17/06 had "Greenland Glacial Pace on the Rise, Study Finds". Lots of potential sliding, south and north. Melting is not the worry, except inasmuch as it facilitates sliding (and coincidentally kills Gulf Stream and alters rest of thermohaline system, and thus economies and crops.)
 
Perhaps also google:
 
tesla earthquake
 
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company rothschild
 
Remember that CSX sold its port operations (outside US) to Dubai, after John Snow became Treasury Secretary. Treasury Secretaries know stuff. See former Treasury Secretary Summers leaving coastal Harvard. Only financiers know the value of money.
 
For really scary stuff, google: denver airport

But however precipitated, ice on land below sea level will slide, and the end of the Antarctic summer is very stormy (See weather underground for current temps West Antarctica) and Greenland's ice (above sea level at least) holds potential in the northern summer.

Posted by: Michael McIntyre | Feb 24 2006 13:18 utc | 68

@ debs:

Why join in on the libelling of Arabs?

Checking my posts, I don't believe I did. I have no problem with 'libelling' Transnational capitalists of all stripes.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 24 2006 13:47 utc | 69

@DeA:

The word comprador was originally Portuguese, It sounded Spanish to me, like compadre.

Words sound similar, but do not mean the same thing.

Should have Googled it.

Actually, I am taking Spanish at the cc. The workforce at the company where I work recently went from 0-30% Hispanic in the space of 2 months, solving Vincente Fox's demographic problems for an hour or two.

Straw Bosses need to be bilingual today.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 13:55 utc | 70

After the Al-Qaeda link and the WMD's failed to retroactively justify the war in Iraq, Bush told us we were "spreading democracy" in the Middle East. So why do we continue to affiliate ourselves with feudal monarchies?

We should be disengaging ourselves completely from this part of the world as rapidly as possible, politically and economically.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 24 2006 14:49 utc | 71

Stephen Roach on the economic consequences of the Dubai deal:
Saving Backlash

Faced with a shortfall of domestic saving, countries basically have two choices -- to curtail economic growth or borrow from the rest of the world. The first option just doesn’t cut it in the land of abundance. America, in general, and its consumers, in particular, treat rapid economic growth as an entitlement. That leaves the US with little choice other than to pursue the second option -- drawing heavily on the pool of surplus global saving as the means to fund economic growth. Once the US started consuming beyond its means, it left itself beholden to external funding and production. And that’s how China and Dubai have entered America’s macro equation.
...
Of course, politicians never want to admit that they are the problem. Instead, they prefer to pin the blame on others -- in this case, China and Dubai.

Washington needs to be very careful what it wishes for. In effect, the UAE is being told that it is fine to re-cycle its petro-dollars into Treasuries -- just don’t buy American ports. China is getting the same message -- curtail your exports to the US but don’t dare stop gobbling up dollar-based financial assets. Meanwhile, the United States does next to nothing to address the macro root of the problem -- a staggering shortfall of domestic saving. The longer the US avoids the heavy lifting of fixing its saving shortfall, the greater the risks that America’s current-account funding problem will end in tears.

Posted by: b | Feb 24 2006 16:22 utc | 72

b,
That seems a very clear-headed analysis of what's going on, and how to understand what's causing it. However, in a country where it is nearly illegal to do economic analysis from the perspective of living drinking, community creating people, it seems very difficult to actually explain how this will cost us as people who are not merely Cartesian/macro-economic consumers. Specifically, this is hard to explain because our audience in the U.S. may not be entirely sure that they are actually people, not corporations in chrysalis.

Seriously, one attempts to discuss that jobs will be lost, which leads to starvation and crime (just to eat, live, and heal). But the papers and TV and colleges blab on that this is no problem, because everything is getting so cheap that "consumers will buy everything nearly for free. Yay!"

One attempts to point out how many political guarantees only protect us from the government; that because the courts, media, and the universities increasingly tell us that the corporate perspective is the only legitimate position in society, every 'privatization' means another place where we will be told: "shutup, we don't pay you to think." And this time it is the ports that "we" are losing. Yet the citizens are unsure that there should be any alternative.

When was the last time a major TV news organiztion asked a labor leader to speak expertly on the consequences of selling the governing of our borders (ports) to a corporation? The idea is crazy! No? Obviously that is a question only an MBA or Economics PhD could answer. Obviously, the corporate perspective is "ours".

Which explains why this particular controversy of the ports matters. This controversy is a lonely example in recent history of when one can speak of the corporatization of "we" in the United States without being cast out of the circle of discourse.

I agree that racism will cost us. But so will failing to point out that the "rugged individualist" Clown-in-Charge (CinC) is a goddamned cyborg - mostly corporate and only human enough to be a dry drunk sadist. That we are being sold down the river by these cyborgs, and especially that they are emulating humanity less and less skillfully as we lose our ability to think from a living human perspective. The moon that we apparently racist American MoA-ites are pointing our virtual fingers toward is corporatist racism - that we (we actual, individual human beings) are being legally required to shoot and kill Arabs because the cyborgs said so, and yet they will not pull the trigger on an Arabian corporation. I believe we are trying to focus on how corporate racism is selective, to see that "Arab" only means "faster you sons of bitches, kill! Kill!" when applied to individuals, and never when applied to corporations. It is especially salutary and enlightening to hear how differently our cyborg CinC speaks when this same word applies to a corporation.

So, no, I do not much appreciate the mental effort put in by anyone who askes me to compare "Arab corporation" to "British corporation", because the enlightenment we are trying to gain here is based on comparing "Arab corporation" with "Arab person".

We're trying to remind ourselves that "we" are people.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 24 2006 18:56 utc | 73

And Annie I'm at a loss to understand how saying that it would be smarter to use the ports issue positively (eg to educate amerikans about Arabs in a good way) is so tiresome that it makes the post unreadable.

ok debs, i'll take a stab at explaining my comment. it has nothing to do w/tiresome. color me sensitive to nuance (sometimes).

"educate amerikans that arabs are the same as anyone else"

we're not collectively idiots. there is a game going on. we are being robbed blind under the guise of 'fair trade' . there is no transparency. fair trade means fair for the carlyles of the world.bush using his position to funnel all the business back to line his own pockets so by the time he leaves office he will have..oh, you know. personally i don't think the 9/11 plot originated w/the arabs,tho i believe they could have been the tools orchastrated thru back deals w/the cronies in places like UAE. there is no difference between UAE and the bushites when they are represented by the same factions. for all i know the bushcos control the gov't in UAE, therefore selling anything to a state run company from UAE is like selling it to bush.

now, back to the game. the rules of the game (according to rove) is you get to use the race card , terra, to get into the ME, but when they want to start the resource grab, then it can't be used. (i think of terra as the sword, or weapon of their choice in the game) excuse us for being a little slow and rapidly loosing pace in this game i never wanted to play to begin with. but the cards we have been dealt include 'terra cards'. its a term shoved down our collective throats since 9/11. regardless of who this UAE company is it is synonymis w/the cartel, the cartel that brought us 9/11. if you read my earlier post it explains how i believe the use of the terra meme is hauled out when needed and put back when not needed. and now we are helping the terrorists by not supporting the deal?

this 'weapon' of terra, is now being used by the forces opposing bush. and now that we have the sword we are called racist. we are not allowed to use the weapon in the game. it is theirs , they own it.

keep in mind, that regardless of fair trade, quite a few of us here(in the us) don't like the fact that our ports are privatized anyway. like me. b mentioned his distaste for selling off utilities earlier.

so we are using whatever resources we have. now, imagine a game w/one sword that gets passed back and forth but this is the only time you have held it. then the other side and half your teammates start yelling racist. lets all stop the game while we take a little lesson to 'educate' all the dummie ameikans about how arabs are just like you and me.

no, i really don't want to take that lesson now. how about we take that lesson when they have the sword. why don't we study racism before we start invading iran. maybe we are finding our voice because its domestic and the other side are the racists, we are using their wind in our sails. sorry, bear with us.

i realize this analogy is a little choppy. sometimes i don't feel like being lectured on what amerikans need . if i had a choice to educate the masses right now i would educate them about how we may have just bombed the crap out of one of the most beautiful holy sites on the planet to perpetuate our total war, or our government maybe building prisons for the fifth column. or , we could all return to kindergarden and talk about how all people are equal, i'm afraid the kids who haven't learned that lesson may be too far gone for my energy at the moment.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 19:09 utc | 74

one more thing. time is of the essesnce, we don't have time to educate the public right now. the war is soo bad, and getting worse at such a fast pace even the crazy o'reilly is exploiting the meme of 'out of control muslims' to get us out of iraq! should we call him up and change his mind? if the inherent racism that allowed us to fight w/muslims is the same racism we can rely on to pull the admin off the teet of our/their resources, why should we use it????

this counrty didn't have muslim fever when i grew up here. it had russian fever. this racism isn't ingrained in our blood, it was carefully nurtured to be used by the powers for financial gain.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 19:49 utc | 75

oops, that was supposed to say 'why shouldn't we use it????"

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 19:51 utc | 76

@annie I don't want to keep on at this but you know that using bad shit like Muslim/Arab bashing to make a point will only come back to haunt you later.

You know that if everyone pulls that shit then there is no difference between the 'goodguys' and the 'badguys' and most of all you know that one of the constant memes at MoA has been that the War on Terra is racist crap so if posters at MoA support that now what does it say about them?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 24 2006 20:49 utc | 77

An excellent op-ed on the port deal by David Sirota:

LINK

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 24 2006 21:06 utc | 78

Oh, excellent. The final summation?

but it needlessly endangers our country in the post-Sept. 11 world.

What a load of horseshit.

Posted by: DM | Feb 24 2006 21:25 utc | 79

the War on Terra is racist crap

DiD,
I agree with you as quoted above. But...

How, specifically, is it racist to say that if an administration declares war on all Arab people who are associated with anti-Western terrorism, then that administration may not consistently declare that it is both hunky and dory to sell precious American orifices to a corporation that is more associated with anti-Western terrorists than Saddam Hussein and his people ever were?

And given that this logical claim must be translated in order to count as political rhetoric, how do you expect a citizen of the States to challenge this corporatist racism, meaningfully?

What I mean to argue is that any politically meaningful challenge to a racism which specifically promotes corporate imperatives can itself be misinterpreted and accused of racism. If we do not risk being misunderstood, then our one remaining choice is to retire into a "6 mat kingdom," a room of one's own, and not Virginia Woolf's room of writing, but a quietist retreat. In my experience, quietism is not actually working out very well as a political strategy here in the States. As remarked elsewhere, we have to recall that it is the people who are planning to welcome Armageddon that have hegemony over the world's largest supply of nukes.

The War on Terra is racist crap that is driven by people more loyal to corporations than to human beings. The War on Terra is not as important to them as are corporate profits, and that is why some Arabs we are ordered to kill, but when faced with other Arabs (corporations) we are ordered to relax and open our national sphincters.

So, first we say, "hell no!" Then we figure out why it feels so wrong. It may be very important to scream no, first.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 24 2006 21:31 utc | 80

@DM

Until I followed Groucho's link, I was with you, your quote made Sirota sound like quite the excrement-artist. But then I read the whole concluding paragraph:

In recent years, this fundamentalism convinced politicians to ink trade deals with Mexico that discarded labor and environmental standards. It convinced politicians to agree to accords with China that wave off basic human rights. Now, perhaps most incredibly, it convinced a supposedly "tough-on-terrorism" president to brandish his veto pen in defense of a policy that threatens America's national security. That fundamentalism may make the president's big donors happy, but it needlessly endangers our country in the post-Sept. 11 world.

I'm not sure if Sirota is whoring in neo-con logic, or helping it rot into something that will reek harder. But I do hear him grabbing a toehold for the claim that human interests can supercede corporate claims. I hear him establishing that the entire War on Terra Newspeak has nothing to do with helping human beings. And I would appreciate grabbing on to that toehold, because one can expand the claim for human interests to all the other levels that he is bringing up:

environment
labor
human rights

Your quote does not do justice to what Sirota's trying to accomplish.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 24 2006 21:47 utc | 81

And if you're wondering why this ports story disaster for the administration was allowed into the press now, here's a theory: the New Yorker article.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 24 2006 22:13 utc | 82

The story starts with an actual, live American human being:

One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers’ Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club’s ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.

"Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity," David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, "He surprised us into doing the right thing." Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora's boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Back in Haynes's office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked "secret" but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.

Most importantly, the article manages to see the country from a human point of view:

Mora's first memory, as a young child, is of playing on the floor in his mother's bedroom, and watching her crying as she listened to a report on the radio declaring that the 1956 anti-Communist uprising in Hungary had been crushed. "People who went through things like this tend to have very strong views about the rule of law, totalitarianism, and America," Mora said.



Posted by: citizen | Feb 24 2006 22:48 utc | 83

debs, ahh, i wish i was better at this.

for the first time it does appear bush lovers are peeling open their eye lids at the hypocricy of bush catagorizing big bad arab terrorists vs good corporate arab guys just because he wants to make a buck. he's got them drinking so much kool aide they are afraid they aren't going to able to tell them apart because don't all arabs look alike? let him take the time out of his day to give his followers a civics lesson. these people are lost to me.

You know that if everyone pulls that shit then there is no difference between the 'goodguys' and the 'badguys' and most of all you know that one of the constant memes at MoA has been that the War on Terra is racist crap so if posters at MoA support that now what does it say about them?

no debs, i don't know, because i don't buy your meme about exactly what the war on terror is here at moa. do you think an honorable arab should be making back door deals with bush and co? the real war on terra has nothing to do with arabs. it has to do with corporations taking over the world. ruining the planet. that is the only terror i know, and it is very real. calling anyone who fears for the security of our country over corporate interests merging with the same people who brought us the 'war on terror' (and that includes bush) calling that racist just makes you a kool aide drinker.

alls fair in love and war, this is war and i know who my enemy is, and it sure as hell ain't the arabs! you want to call me the same as a bad guy, go for it.

the racism is a dangerous game. so is the security. i am not going to let the very people who nurture this racism to call me a racist because i don't want them involved with the port deal.
i don't have to 'like all arabs' , if i'm not going to like an arab it doesn't have to mean its because they might be a 'terrorist'. it is not arabs i worry are bad for our security, it is whoever are in kahoots with our corrupt money guys,and that includes some arabs, mixing the bushes and the bin ladens (carlyle etc) or bushes and some saudi's is not good for the health of this country. its some of those loverly arabs in the INC i have a problem with. i don't know enough about all this, and if i am operating from fear it's because i damn well believe they are playing us with this terra crap like puppets on a string. i have no doubt if they needed another pearl harbor, or another exploding mosque, or a 9/11 they could find an arab or two to help them, doesn't make me racist. makes me realistic. gonna call me racist because i don't like chabali and his ilk?

i am going to agree to disagree with you, you know.

Posted by: annie | Feb 24 2006 23:00 utc | 84

@citizen and MoA Americans

I think we are close to agreement, but naturally our perspectives are a little different. Australia and New Zealand have already been down this path, so perhaps we have the benefit of a better understanding of Globalism.

In Australia, almost all manufacturing has already been shipped off-shore, we understand that a 'service' economy just means more people trying to grab bigger handfuls from the same pie. We know that Vegemite is now an American owned product, that our garbage gets emptied and that our buses are run by a French company, that all our utility companies are in private hands, that the wealth of the country that was accumulated over many years in 'Mutual' companies has been pillaged, that every new bit of infrastructure that gets built is done in cosy government-corporate deals, that we can't travel anywhere without an E-Tag billing us for every kilometer. We know all about socialise the costs, privatise the profits, and we know that we are just tenants. We don't have any illusions about national identity.

Posted by: DM | Feb 24 2006 23:06 utc | 85

Well I seem to remember the article about the Navy chief lawyer was discussed in MoA earlier in the week, whatever it says which is a lot, doesn't need to be 'hidden' by a red herring.

The issue is far too complex to worry about the sheeple getting hold of when 'both sides' (Ha Ha that's a joke us and them. Politics as a football game) persist in reducing everything to one liner black vs white bullshit (eg arabs bought the port, arabs = terror, If arabs own port, port = front for terrorism).

Especially when MoA-ites consider it was less than two weeks ago many of the same people were running the "BushCo blew up WTC not Al Quaeda". So which is it? How does the new arabs = terror line match up with BushCo did it all? Ah that's right "they are inconsistent than us so we need to be better at being inconsistent than them win this thing."

I'm not angry. Just really disappointed because despite what some people have been saying, in the end it is going to come down to the same old, same old.

No one can be bothered getting off their asses to try and sort the problem out properly, at it's base, so everyone will whine about weak kneed politicians right up until the last moment, then give the donkey the big tick.

Of course the held in great contempt sheeple (eg other humans who aren't as well informed but at least imagine they are acting in the best interests of their country) won't tick the donkey because although they may not be well informed, they can smell weak as piss insincerity when they come across it.

The dems make sure evil Diebold will cop the blame for that.
Face it it's easier to point your finger elsewhere than actually do anything and the cycle will begin again.

You know whenever I point out this stuff I'm told that I'm anti-amerikan where in fact that is not my intention I like amerikan people and don't want them or the rest of the world to go through the inevitable horror that is coming closer and closer like a fucking freight train.

Take a look at that line again:I think that given the nature of the atrocities committed on the non-Jewish semites by the West, in particular the USA, a much more sensible use of this issue is to educate amerikans that arabs are the same as anyone else. I'm not singling out just the US, I'm saying particularly the US because in this case it is the US which is using the Arab involvement in capitalism crank up the feara terra paranoia.

If BushCo have been put between a rock and a hard place on this issue surely the people who are now advocating feara terra to kick BushCo in the nuts will be in exactly the same quandry. When or more probably if they get in power how can they then explain that feara terror aint true, that it's just a crock to make them compliant.

Oh well I hear there's a new makeover prog coming out next season. It's for nations who have become flabby, slack-jawed, and have lost their self esteem. A team of experts selected and contracted to Fox television comes in and sorts the mess out painlessly. The team is led by that much loved and incisive analyst of nations on the edge Dr Henry Kissinger

But this isn't a partisan team. No, no, heaven forfend! Jimmy Carter is busy perfecting his 'install democracy and still get the correct result' program after his somewhat ill-judged work in Venezuala and Haiti. Although flat out like a lizard drinking, he will oversight the 'team' as their spiritual mentor.

Since we've got Halle Berry playing the role of Dr Condi Rice who also had to beg off due to 'other committments' we have been approached by President Clinton who says he is very keen to 'lend a hand'.

"So everybody sit back in your seats and enjoy the ride. Dr Feelgood is on hand less any of the 'procedures' make you a little uncomfortable.

By the end when the good old USA steps from behind the curtain to wild applause from the entire membership of the UN, shrieks of surprise and hugs from the French, there won't be a dry eye in the house"


"See Charlene I told ya we could fix this without having all of that marching amd rioting and revolution stuff!"

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 25 2006 0:25 utc | 86

I think the point that *ought* to be made is the hypocrisy of the Busheviks in stirring up anti-Muslim and anti-Arab xenophobia among the proles while remaining chummy-chummy with the elite of Arab/Muslim nations. Just another double standard. It's a shame that the anti-Bush brigade stirs up the same damn xenophobia -- an easy cheap shot -- in its attempt to point out the hypocrisy.

But nothing new about this. We can remember a time when national sentiments were stirred up to pit French against British or Germans against French, when the ruling families of all three countries were intermarried and related for generations. It's revolution that scares the elite, not nationalist warfare. Nationalist warfare makes money for the folks in the know -- remember Grampa (Prescott) Bush's friendly relationship with German business elites even after the US was officially at war with Germany? Let the little people kill each other; the big fish swim above the fray, feeding well.

My point about the comprador is that the comprador is one who has abandoned all loyalties of nation, state, religion, even (to some extent) ethnicity, and pledged allegiance to the fraternity of wealth. "His people" are the elite of other nations, not the regular folks of his own. The comprador represents the triumph of class interest over other forms of community like nationalism, religion, shared culture or ethnicity, etc.

"I call you my base."

Posted by: DeAnander | Feb 25 2006 0:28 utc | 87

Robert Parry notes that the problem may be that all this Mickey Mouse anti-terrorism regulation isn't actually very popular with the 'free-trade' crowd.

This businessman said bigger factors in the decision to turn the U.S. ports over to the UAE were financial – post-9/11 security precautions had eroded the profitability of the port operations and the UAE was one of the few countries with sufficient resources to invest almost $7 billion to take over the U.S. ports.

Maybe the UAE was doing our economy a favor, buoying it, for the moment.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 0:30 utc | 88

@DiD

Well I seem to remember the article about the Navy chief lawyer was discussed in MoA earlier in the week, whatever it says which is a lot, doesn't need to be 'hidden' by a red herring.

My link does not "hide" anything, and contrasting human beings to corporations is no red herring, but rather it is my point.

Admittedly, I should clarify that I am not attempting to valorize every argument for how to slam the neos over this. Rather, I am pointing to what seems most valuable in the Bush-critique so that we can try to nourish it in each of our social worlds toward more people grokking the direct link between corporatist lies and racist lies.

Apropos of older conversations here, I think "our tribe" vs. "their tribe" conceptualizing is basically hard wired, so I'd like to identify the corporatists (or compradors) as "their tribe."

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 0:50 utc | 89

Debs, get a grip. Bushie is reaping what he sowed. This has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with Bushies "be very scared" bullshit. I agree totally with DeAnander and Citizen. Bushie created this shit, he can reap the wind.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 25 2006 0:52 utc | 90

Of course the UAE was doing the US economy a favour. Once the slippery slope of hock of the silver has begun, and it began long before this deal, unless My Uncle comes along and 'invests' in your economy you're fucked every way but loose.

NZ's fine at the moment because everytime a recession appears on the horizon, treasury pushes up the base lending rate (to combat inflation you understand) and all those Japanese housewives doing their best investment returns online, tip a few more billion in.

It means that our dollar appreciates, we can't sell fuck all, but imports cost much less!

Everyone's having a fine old time.

Thing is we're a small economy as are all the economies where this was 'trialled' so it can probably keep going for quite a while.

It won't take very long at all for the US to eat up every dollar in existence playing this 'chain letter' or 'pyramid scheme'.

Then we'll be 'living in interesting times'.

Hmm... Nah! Too complex to sell to the sheeple;

"Arabs Bomb Babies!"

Of course that won't stop the shell game but it is diverting.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 25 2006 0:54 utc | 91

To be sure, I should have spoken more precisely - maybe the UAE was doing a favor for, very specifically, the man who is afraid of the nickname - "Hoover".

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 1:01 utc | 92

@citizen Sorry you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying you were trying to hide anything, I was saying that BushCo don't need to use the ports thing as a red herring to hide the schism in high places story.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 25 2006 1:07 utc | 93

this is not about the an american identity. first of all its not 6 ports, its 21. this is a power grab. he's using the office to conduct business and giving away political positions to further the agenda of his family. i don't know what's going on but i don't trust it. i don't want to wake up and find out behind our backs whoops, the bushites controls all the port security. just like marvins company was in control of security of airports and the world trade center.

the enemy has used the meme of terra to make huge infringements upon our rights and our constitution.
do you have diebold in australia and new zealand? do you have a huge percentage of the populace worried we will never get them out of power? this seemingly 'business deal' may be , on the surface, just that. but what if it isn't. they can use 'terror arabs', to justify gross occupation , banking on the clueless uneducated masses, but then feign racism when those same idiots say we don't want them w/that kind of access to our ports. here's who i don't want having unfettered control of our ports, the very people who could close them off. who know what kind of contacts and deals these power hungry fascists have made within the state government company of UAE. our 'friends/alies fighting the war on terror" don't you mean perpetuating the war itself, because thats what i think of any state in the palm of the evil hand. am i being paranoid? hell yes.

just last week bush was out making some stupid speech about alternative energy feigning ignorance about a deal that who the heck knows wft!

is it different than any other shady deal, probably not. but this time the press caught on, the people heard, the little people heard arab, thought terra, o ports, o my. all the politicians climbed on board and maybe o maybe there is an inroad to awaken the masses.

Of course the held in great contempt sheeple (eg other humans who aren't as well informed but at least imagine they are acting in the best interests of their country) won't tick the donkey because although they may not be well informed, they can smell weak as piss insincerity when they come across it.

ok, i heard that. i can tell there will be no justifying my fears or emotions enough to pass your mustard and i won't get disgusted and leave like faux, whom i miss. there is more than meets the eye here, and i really don't think it's about racism. i think the public is really wondering about the kind of government we have,our security is in question, they lied, the covered up, the are acting like they have something to hide, and they probably do. frankly, i'm getting out the popcorn. i just don't think this is about racism.

@deanander, just yesterday i linked to one of our better threads discussing just the topic you mention

It seems like the rulers of the world are one huge mafia organization, and to climb up to a position of power you have to be a "made man", you have to have proved to the elite that no human life, that no truth, nothing, will stand in the way of your service of the ultra-rich.

(Malooga | Nov 12, 2005 8:00:08 PM )

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2006 1:24 utc | 94

Paul Krugman weighs in:

  Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions - a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.

And yes, we need to make clear to any suddenly-no-longer-a-suporter of Bosh that what made the man a liar was not that he is an Arab lover, but that he is a comprador, a corporatist. And, yes, those guys are out to kill us, we people.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 1:26 utc | 95

ps, just curious, does anybody here think that any arabs are in complicity w/the bushites to destabilize the middle east? do they comprise a terror threat? and if there are, and if they do, could they be in imbedded in the UAE?

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2006 1:38 utc | 96

Thanks for finding that one Citizen.

I miss reading Krugman, since NYT went pay.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 25 2006 1:50 utc | 97

DiD,
Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 2:03 utc | 98

And now I really need to get off this topic, but first a quote from William Arkin of the Washington Post by way of soj


The Bush administration meanwhile rushes to the defense of the UAE and the business deal, but what it is really doing is subsisting off of the fear of another 9/11.

War is such a comfort to the Bush camp because war inherently gives the federal government and the White House so much power. On the surface, rebellion over the UAE deal and the huffing and puffing about protecting AMERICA would seem to just play into the hands of Democrats and opponents of the administration, but the reality is that this entire episode just punctuates national security fears that favor the White House.

And mark my words: If Congress does anything from all of this it will be to pass a Ports Security and Protection of Vital American Bodily Fluids Act demanding more security, more money spent on intelligence, more inspections and review, more federal agents.

Look what Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday, that foreign government-owned companies be banned from controlling, owning and managing U.S. ports, call it a "matter of national security in the post-9/11 world."

It all plays into the same war, war, war culture.

He's probably right - so much more the need to clarify that this is not war to the corporatist tribe, it's just business.

Posted by: citizen | Feb 25 2006 2:18 utc | 99

annie, there is money in de-stabilization. Look at the Saudi facility. It wasn't bimbed, but just the threat raised a barrel of oil two dollars.

They are all in the mix, and Bushie is being called and he don't like it or do the economic elite. Just give up your children to fught in our money making wars to protect our economic interest and shut the f up.

Thats what this is about. Now the people chambers, the senate and house are actually getting some balls, now we're racist. What bullshit. It is accountability, it the the be very scared bullshit, it is about getting someone in there that actually calls the Bushies out. You know the tide has turned when Limblowhard gets the talking points and starts calling the Dems racist. They have now sent mixed signals and they must cover their asses.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 25 2006 2:19 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.