> -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.
> -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?
Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> Well, on the merits, if we want to have that actual discussion, this is a
> situation of a foreign government owning key port property, not just any old
> multinational corporation. So you have a government, which was one of only
> THREE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD that recognized the Taliban regime, owning it.
> That is exactly the issue that those opposing the deal have emphasized, not
> just that the company is registered in some other country. And as I posted,
> Dems have been highlighting tougher port security for many years and have
> specifically attacked outsourcing at airports and ports, partly for security
> reasons and partly as a pro-labor position to keep low-wage employers out of
> those institutions.
No port property would have been foreign owned. Only the right to manage. The fact that the UAE recognizes the Taliban regime tells us next to nothing about the company Dubai Ports World. The US has people detained illegally in Guantanamo so by your reasoning Ford is not to be trusted to build safe cars?
I am against outsourcing for labor reasons but that isn't the heart of the Dems argument. Those ports were managed by a British firm previously and MOST Dems had no problem with that. Good on the Dems who may have opposed that deal for labor reasons.
> As for the politics, it has clearly gotten Democrats big political points.
> Now, is all distrust of foreign government control of US institutions
> automatically racist? Is may be nationalistic and a bit hawkish, but
> reducing it to racism debases the word, since foreign ownership by British
> or German companies have been attacked during times of conflict with those
> nations in the past.
So we are at war with the UAE? Limiting foreign ownership during an active conflict with a country is quite different than what we have here. If it were an Iranian company, since our relationship with Iran is nearly nonexistant and may be headed downward the analogy might hold water but as is it does not.
If those "big political points" have a concrete end result the pandering may be the lesser of two evils. It really looks like it's mostly about making Bush look bad and counting coup. Hardly a worthwhile endeavor. What Republican Senator who backed this deal is now in danger come re-election time to a Dem who opposed the Dubai Ports World deal? I am open to believing that the stink over the deal, even though it panders to racist ideas, may be the lesser of two evils. So far no one has shown me any evidence that supports this.
> What's interesting about the UAE is the Syriana-Michael Moore point that
> these big oil wells masquerading as countries are tight allies with US
> corporate elites represented by Bush, but are the enemies of many of their
> people, including imported laborers denied participation in the oil bounty,
> and of most core US interests.
So this fuss is really about how closely corporations and governments can be intertwined rather than security? Or it's really about capitalists elites vs labor? I think not. I'm hardly a fan of the UAE for many reasons but none of those reasons were what killed the deal and got people all worked up.
> What continues to amaze me is that folks treat attacks on the UAE of even
> the same galaxy of phenomena as actual racism against those without power.
> I somewhat agree with Charles that talking about "racism" against targets
> with massive power of their own to deploy just confuses the word beyond
> recognition.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
So Senator Frank Lautenberg claiming that, "We wouldn't transfer the title to the Devil; we're not going to transfer it to Dubai" isn't really as racist as it appears? Excuse me for saying so but only a white guy could say this not pandering to racism.
John Thornton