Wednesday, February 22, 2006

the port authority

the neon-con chagrin at the uae taking over port operations at six of our ports is, imo, two-fold:

  1. general racism directed at anything with the word "arab" in it (also muslim, islaam, middle-easterner, persian, and the prefixes "al-" and "bin-".
  2. the word "port" is nautical for "left" and nothing left-related ever flies with neon-cons. if a foreign government took over our "starboards" instead then they would say it's only "right."

personally i'm experiencing a little inner dichotomy over the issue. instinctually i was eager to pile on the bush-bash bandwagon -- the man is always wrong, sue me for jumping the gun occasionally -- and chalk another one up to incompetance and complete disregard for actual security. now i'm wondering if my reaction isn't because i'm a little prejudiced myself at the thought of a mid-east nation controlling our ports.

so i prolonged my conclusions. the british formerly operated these ports so why should a different nation doing it be so horrible? just because they're an islaamic country? consider that the uae:

  • is one of three countries that recognizes the taliban as the ruling government of afghanistan (i-heart-saudi arabia and libya being the other two)
  • has historically been an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 7-11
  • has laundered money for al quaeda and other terrorist outfits
  • has been very uncooperative with u.s. efforts to find osama

okay, so maybe i'm not exactly behind this.

even so, i have little concern for port security lessening (partially because it's so fuck-poor as it is). in truth the vetting process for foreign investments, especially for seaports, seems rigorous. you can read about it here. informative stuff.

all port owners (including the uae-owned dubai ports world) must abide by the maritime transportation security act passed by congress in 2002 and international ship and port facility security codes enacted in 2004. both sets of security measures are enforced by the coast guard.

and were it not THIS administration in office, i may have been peseudo-psatisfied with the psale.

but (i won't write something someone else has already written better):

Another secret deal cooked up behind closed doors? Another series of prior relationships between Bush crony appointees and thebenefiting business? Another request from the same crew that brought us WMDs, 'mushroom clouds', and Michael Brown to trust them? And now another claim the whole thing wasn't their fault?

As Bush and his cronies stumbled Tres Stoogian like from one self inflicted cluster-fuck to another, the next set of excuses to come out of their PR pie-holes has been "No one could have predicted it" or "Everyone agreed with us at the time". And today we've already gone from "This is a good deal that we've checked out" to "The President
didn't know
" about it: Except they're still going to push it on Congress. Funny thing about that modus operandi; It tends to erode trust.
it's a rare instance in which the face value of what's being done is representative through and through.

currently listening to:

death of the party (2006)


fern said...

hmmm. I feel the same. I think I generally support the sale, but a little part of me wonders... oh! what the fuck. everyone in this country worries too much. I'm sure this new company, arab or aryan, will do a fine job. It's all about money.

Ian McGibboney said...

I don't this case, I'd like to think that the company would be more than just about the money. Because what happens if al-Qaida offers more?