> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net>
> -It comes back to not wanting to label our societies structure as racist.
> -Nathan doesn't want to do that unless he's backed into a corner.
> -He'd rather deny the individual racism of an individual and leave it at
> that.
>
> Yes, if you don't defend the poor oppressed emirs of the UAE on their right
> to own coastal real estate, you don't believe in racism. Oh bullshit.
>
> Institutional racism is systematically detaining Arab-Americans int he wake
> of 911 and jailing them. Institutional racism is not talking about the body
> count of Iraqi civilians killed.
>
> Institutional racism is many things. I just don't buy it's attacking rich
> plutocrats in Dubai who rape their own foreign employees for kicks.
>
> This whole response to the ports controversy is political correctness in the
> worst sense of it-- idiotic liberals defending those who deserve no defense
> because they worry the language used might be interpreted as racist.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
What this boils down to is that for some reason you choose to believe Menendez truly feels that US ports are somehow less safe under the ownership of Dubai Ports than another firm. For many reasons I choose not to believe this. I think he is pandering to racists for political reasons.
I haven't yet condemned the man of the Dems for this by the way, I'm just not buying this as only a security issue or even primarily as one. It is about xenophobia first and foremost. If I thought the Dems would really use this issue to make political gains I would probably very hesitantly support it. It really seems more like a jab at Bush than anything else. Not exactly a greater good that defends the use of pandering to racists.
Why do you feel US ports would be less safe under this owner vs. another? What real safety concern do you have? I'm certainly open to this possibility but no one has made even a weakly coherent argument for this that I have read.
John Thornton