Yet more on ports
Quick on the ports deal:
Even those who agree that this is a terrible idea don’t seem to understand why it is so bad. They point to the need for more safeguards, or for making sure that the Dubai government really doesn’t have ties to terrorism today. That is not the point.
In the five years before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam was our quasi-ally, on the principle of “the enemy of our enemy (Iran) is our friend. Almost overnight, Saddam turned on us and became our enemy.
During the sixties and seventies, the United States had no stronger ally in the middle east than Iran under the Shah. But in the space of a year, Iran went from being our ally to our deadly enemy under the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Saudi Arabia claims to be our ally today. Would you give them the keys to the Port of NY?
Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, claims to be our ally. But they are probably one assassination away from becoming an open enemy.
And so it goes. No vetting today can guarantee what the government of Dubai’s relationship will be with us tomorrow. And our own secret agencies and experts have been notably awful at predicting events in the middle east.
A good point, I think. On the other hand:
(Update below the fold…)
Port Administration runs region’s port
The Sun’s headline “UAE firm to run 6 U.S. ports” (Feb. 12) is misleading with regard to the purchase of a British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly referred to as P&O Ports, which did become the property of Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates on Feb. 13.The story states that P&O “runs Baltimore’s public terminals.” That’s not true.
P&O Ports is a stevedoring company that has competitively bid contracts with the Maryland Port Commission to perform certain duties at its public terminals in the port of Baltimore.
A stevedore company is one that hires longshoremen to load and unload cargo from ships.
Therefore, that corporate transaction means that UAE’s Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle the containers and other cargoes coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of these ports.
The Maryland Port Administration will continue to “run” the port of Baltimore’s public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general.
The private terminal operators will continue to run their terminals.
Helen Delich Bentley
LuthervilleThe writer is a former member of Congress and a consultant to the Port of Baltimore
I must say that I don’t find the idea of the UAE being ultimately responsible for hiring freight handlers terribly reassuring, although it’s meant to be here. Seems to me that that’s the whole problem, in fact: the big worry here is that the ports will be used to smuggle in some nastiness or other for later use against us; hiring the right loader/unloaders would be the easiest way to do it.
I can certainly see the importance of making positive business connections in the Arab world, and I’m willing to be convinced that UAE is generally on the side of the angels; in fact, I’ve gotten a couple of private e-mails from military types, old Mideast hands with experience to back them up, saying just that. For now, consider me uneasy but willing to be persuaded, I guess.
I think it’s also worth noting that the above letter was written by a former Republican Congresswoman, whose position was also endorsed by a poster at….Portland Indymedia?!? And the very first comment following the post is this one:
I don’t think we have to worry about Queen Elizabeth blowing up Baltimore, now do we? Dubai’s record on terrorism (especially financing) is legendary. Calling this a racist issue is BS. This is just another Bush/Cheney scam to get their oil buddies from the Mid East (let’s hold hands) in control of America’s security. What better way to instigate the next phase of 911? Now Bush can smuggle in all the terrorists and weapons he wants through the new ‘black holes’ of these ports.
So on the one hand, I’m aligned with this nutbag, and on the other I’m on the same side as Jimmeh Peanuthead. Christ almighty, it’s clear as mud.
Update! I’d feel better about all this if I could believe that the agencies involved had crossed all their I’s and dotted all their T’s. From the looks of it, they haven’t:
Fact: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has been little more than a rubber stamp on sensitive foreign acquisitions since its founding. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, who has followed the panel’s dealings extensively, pointed out:
This is not the first time this interagency panel – called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States – has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.
Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel’s deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country’s most important ports to a UAE company.
Not very reassuring, is it? But let’s not get carried away either with the new bipartisan spirit of Bush-bashing; after all, as I said below, certain people’s newfound concern for US security is conditional, highly suspect, and very likely fleeting:
I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer, shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., and join with congressional Republicans to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let’s not forget: It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.
It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System — the Justice Department program that helped nabbed at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons, and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.
And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush administration’s profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as “terrible abuses.”
As Malkin suggests, we should be wary of the Democrats and their sudden enthusiasm for racial and ethnic profiling. This is now about more than just who manages American ports, unfortunately; as usual with the wholly unprincipled Dems, the real issue here has now become almost entirely obscured by their grubby manipulations in search of political advantage, and the absolute necessity not to take a single word they utter at face value. It’s a sad, sorry state of affairs all the way around.
Updated update! Will Collier:
I honestly don’t know what to make of the port management story. I’m not clear on what the implications of the whole deal are. On the one hand, I can certainly understand the “What the hell are they thinking?” instinctive reaction. That initial response to a country from the Middle East ‘taking over US ports’ is not hard to sympathize with.
On the other hand, I think Bush has a point when he says we aren’t doing ourselves (or anybody else) any favors by taking a “no Arabs need apply” position on doing business. That’s a bad way to make friends–and enemies. Whether or not you buy the line ‘we are not at war with Islam,’ we are not at war with every Arab on the planet. We really are trying to win people over in that part of the world. Throwing what appears to be a normal business transaction back in the faces of a decent ally is not going to help our cause.
And UAE is an ally. At least as I understand it, the UAE is easily the most Americanized of the Gulf states. We already sell them the most sophisticated version of the F-16 ever built; the new jets they’re getting are more advanced than any US F-16 (no kidding). That’s a pretty big statement of trust, and that deal was done well before Bush came to power; I remember seeing the first models doing flight tests back in the 1990’s.
That’s not to say that the US can’t or shouldn’t be careful here. I have no problem at all with doing extensive screenings of port employees, for instance (I’d be pretty hypocritical if I did, since I had to go through a pretty damn intensive government screening myself for my own job). But after further review, I do have a problem with “no Arabs need apply.” The opportunistic stuff I’m hearing out of everybody from Hillary Clinton to Bill Frist sounds a lot like that, and that’s not something we ought to be standing for.
There is much in what he says. With Will, there usually is.
Update to the updated update! Randy points out in comments that the last word on this probably ought to be Velociman’s, and at this point I’m inclined to think he’s right.
- Entries
WTC/9-11: 3,000
MADRID: 190
LONDON: 37
BALI: 202
---------
EAST AFRICA STARVATION/DEHYDRATION
DUE TO DROUGHT: 700,000+
FRANCE HEAT WAVE: 11,435
HURRICANE KATRINA: 6,644
Hardly comparable in scope. After 50 posts or so, the line of conversation always gets wiggly...and I'm not trying to say that terrorism isn't a huge problem. But in terms of what's in store for humanity in the next 100 years, it defiinitely takes a back seat.
If I fart in the woods, Zorro, but there's no progressives around ... does Gaia still hear it?
As for the global environment, I am pretty sure that we are past the point of no return...what we, meaning the US as the world superpower, has to do first and foremost is take it seriously, because we will be stuck holding the bag.
As the world's populations blooms, the ability of this earth to feed all of those people falters. The drought-striken plains and deserts of Africa as well as much of the middleeast was forested, arable land within the span of written human history. The fact that it is not now is due to human activity. In the last 100 years the burgeoning human population, coupled with a incredibly increased ability to convert forest to pasture/farmland/wasteland faces us with a grim future.
All of life on earth...actually let's be more specific: human life on earth is 100% dependant on plant life. Severe environmental change can happen rapidly...in the span of a few plant generations.
As we continue to disrupt the system that allowed the evolution of man, the total area favorable to our existance will become smaller and smaller (as it already has) and the human population becomes larger and larger ...surely you can see the problem.
From a purely practical point-of-view, it will be our problem because we are the country with military bases all over the world. We are the country that "welcomes the poor, huddled masses", like it or not we lead the world.
Geez, dude, you're about as cheery as the book of Revelations. Too bad you're not as plausible.
Geez, can't you even do a flamewar right, you raging incompetent fucktard?
This earth is incredibly resiliant.
Drought problems and starvation? It isn't lack of food that is the problem, it is inept and evil governments that use hunger as a weapon.
Your environmental hysteria is a little overblown.
N.B.: I'm not advocating littering, and I do advocate conservation, but I would encourage a little common sense and a little courage.
but the truth is that we didn't have the means that we do now to monitor the air 50 years ago, and even taking that into consideration it depends on where you are looking.
The Great Plains did blow away 70 years ago, and likely will again. Lake Erie was a mess, and in many ways still is. Zebra mussels have done a lot (unintentionally) to clean up the Great Lakes, but have supplanted almost all other molluscs, greatly altering fish populations.
The line about "more forested land..." while technically true, is very misleading. It's kind of like closing down an automobile manufacturing facility that an entire county depended on for their livelyhood...with pensions etc...and replacing it with a Super WalMart. Just not the same, and not as good for the community.
Drought and starvation in Africa is due to desertification caused by human activity and over population.
Sure, there are whitefish in the Detroit River...but you can't eat them because the PCB and mercury levels are too high.
There has been progress...especially around major midwestern cities (the midwesterners really are some of the best and most pragmatic folk I've ever known). But the next 50 years will be critical, and we need to be vigilant, especially in Africa and South America.
Yep, there are still some bad nasties in the water. You do know we don't dump the stuff in the water anymore, don't you? By the way, Lake Erie was pretty well cleaned up before the Zebra mussel arrived.
Big trees come from little trees. I'm sorry they aren't growing fast enough for you. I'll go have Smokey chastise them for their slackness.
Starvation in Africa is caused by idiotic and despotic governments. Desertification is caused by ancient cultural traditions in agriculture that need to be changed. The remedy? Industrialization.
We need to be vigilant in Africa and South America? Pardon me, but I think the Africans and South Americans need to be vigilant. It's their land and they have to live there.
When did the zebra mussel arrive, Mikey? I'll bet the real answer is earlier than you think. I'm not saying that mussels were solely reponsible for controlling the algae blooms in Lake Erie...but they help alot, and were accidentally introduced just about at the same time that the lake started to rebound (mid 80's). However, Bush admin policies have loosened the restrictions on fertilizer runoff in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins, and the same type of choking effect that nearly killed Lake Erie, is now killing the Gulf of Mexico. Plus, the heated water is fueling hurricanes...in the next few years, if the trend continues. we are likely to see almost every hurricane that reaches the Gulf get turbo-charged...time will tell.
Starvation in Africa is caused by overpopulation, plain and simple. There are simply more people there than the land can carry...Industrialization will just add pollution to the problem.
We, the people of Earth, need to be vigilant. However, we the US needs to be particularly so, because as the self-professed purveyor of freedom, it will wind up being our problem...indeed, it already has.
*The previous forests weren't very diverse. The one's now are as we have physically planted differing species.
*Lake Erie was cleaning up before the zebra mussel arrived.
*We are not causing stronger hurricanes. The sun's activity and the natural cycles of the planet have greater effect then we ever will. We just came out of a lull and are going into a more active cycle. Get over it - man is an insignificant insect compared to the raw force of nature.
*Overpopulation is not the problem in Africa. The problem is poverty. Decent government (the opposite of Mugabe)and industrialization bring wealth, which allows for better farming techniques on less land, permits the taming of pollution from industry (and from humanity merely existing), and permits access to better health care. Examples: sewage treatment plant as opposed to just dumping it in the street; propane or electric stoves as opposed to wood fires; drip irrigation in dry areas as opposed to praying for rain; treated piped water as opposed to rain barrels, catch-basins, and open surface water.
Decent government and industrialization have allowed our cities to be incredibly livable and clean. Try that in a pre-industrial society. You need wealth before you can worry about a clean environment and to get wealth you need (A) decent government; and (B) industrialization.
Any other "solution" is pure moonshine.
Now to get back to the ports thread...
You are extremely mis-informed.
"*Overpopulation is not the problem in Africa. The problem is poverty. Decent government (the opposite of Mugabe)and industrialization bring wealth, which allows for better farming techniques on less land, permits the taming of pollution from industry (and from humanity merely existing), and permits access to better health care. Examples: sewage treatment plant as opposed to just dumping it in the street; propane or electric stoves as opposed to wood fires; drip irrigation in dry areas as opposed to praying for rain; treated piped water as opposed to rain barrels, catch-basins, and open surface water."
You are likewise...extremely mis-informed. Have you been to east Africa? It's not what you see on the Discovery Channel.
Maybe we've got more facts than you, and that's caused us to come to a different conclusion. Or maybe we've got the same facts you do, but we're just smarter. Or maybe we've got less facts than you, but we're so much smarter and more experienced than you in real world matters that we've come to a more correct conclusion.
Ever consider those options, or are they beyond your painfully evident limited comprehension?
“*The previous forests weren’t very diverse. The one’s now are as we have physically planted differing species."
You truly believe that the above statement you made is true and based on fact?
It is absolutely untrue, and is not based on fact. Point me to your source on this...it'll be good for a chuckle.
ZorroSwishy McLimpWrist, I think the burden of proof rests with you.Not that I expect you to meet even our low standards of proof, but hey, it'll be fun watching you try.
That's just Michigan. In previous centuries Michigan was the home of the white pine and it was white pine as far as the eye could see. Now it is rather diverse.
You seem to really have a odd complaint here. I merely noted that the US has more forested land now than a hundred years ago and you flipped out that it wasn't the right type of forest, it wasn't diverse, it was all tree farms.
No, it isn't all tree farms (although a lot of CCC type row planting occurred - in the 1930's).
Yes, the species that live next to one another are now very diverse.
It's really a little late to complain about the lumbering of the nineteenth century (long over) and the replantings of the 1930's (long over).
Yes, lumber and paper companies do own land and plant trees that they intend to harvest and then replant the same trees. So this is bad? Sounds like sound conservation and management of a resource to me. Plant, harvest; plant, harvest.
You really do have odd complaints Zorro. Must be darned unsatisfying for you that everything is just not perfect the way you want it to be.
You don't know what you're talking about. Do a little study on the natural history of your home state. I'll give you a hint: passenger pigeon. Another hint: the largest know colony of any bird species was in Michigan. Another hint: they didn't nest in white pines.
OK enough. This is like "Wag the Dog":..."there it is...right on my TV, waddaya means it's not real? I'm watching it on TV."
Spaz.
Those cites took a whole five minutes to find; try not to be so flagrantly ignorant in the future. And if this is your "area of expertise", I feel really sorry for your employer. Bet it's some government job - you know, the type where any warm ass in a seat gets paid.
Why do you guys even bother?
Most of the lower peninsula of Michigan was beech-maple forest, which is now mostly gone.
and, I was responding to Mikey, not Joe...learn how to read numbnutz.
You left out the most important part, dickhead...
The UP and the LP are two very different ecosystems...I had specifically mentioned "LP" way back knowing that Mikey lives near the "thumb".
Now, for the reality of Michigan's forests (are you beginning to understand just how badly you've been sandbagged yet, Z?) on a handy map (about 1/4 down the page). In brief: the LP was approximately 1/3 deciduous hardwoods (what our "expert" Z refers to as beech-maple forest), 1/3 mixed deciduous/coniferous, and 1/3 mixed coniferous (jack-red-white pine, spruce, fir). All that took another whole two minutes to search, Z. So the lesson (I know you still haven't learned) is if you're gonna lie, at least lie about something that's not so easy to disprove.
Stick to your psychotic conspiracy theories, Z, where no proof is possible. Because when it comes to fact-based reality, well, you're pretty much out of facts, and out to lunch.
http://fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh-03/mi/mi_03.htm
Today, forest cover is about 52%...mostly in the UP. In the early 1800's it was nearly 100%, with an unbroken beech-maple forest that stretched from Barrien county in the southwest (at the Indiana border) well up to the jack-pine zone- 2/3 of the way up.
That forest contained the largest ever recorded colony of birds- passenger pigeons- the colony occupied almost the entire forest.
"The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned."
look for a Harriet Meyers moment any moment now...