Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Keep Dubai Arabs Away From U.S. Ports

There we have that unusual sight this morning: L.A. Times editorial page editor Andres Martinez and President George W. Bush are on the same side.

Both want to put Dubai Arabs in charge of six U.S. ports and their security.

In this respect, both are nuttier than fruitcakes.

If there is any likely place where Osama bin Laden and his friends would try to smuggle an atomic bomb into the U.S. and blow it up, it's our ports, particularly such places as New York, Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Newark.

I would certainly expect the Times editorial page, doing whatever the sad sacks in Chicago want them to, to support such a foolish gesture to global tolerance. After all, read the editorial pages, Nick Goldberg and all the rest, and realize that these exponents of world understanding never saw a terrorist they didn't like, ranging from the Hamas movement to the Sunnis blowing up sacred mosques in Iraq, as happened just today. If Nick Goldberg had been Indira Gandhi, he too would have hired Sikh security guards and, as she did, paid the price.

But President Bush? What could be the explanation for his sudden departure into lunacy? Maybe, it was George W. Bush who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney out on the quail hunt the other day, and we still haven't gotten the full story.

No, folks, while I'm not normally an admirer of Sens. Frist and Gov. Corzine, I would stick with their judgment on this one.

And so does the New York Times. Its editorial this morning questions letting the Arabs take over the ports.

Everything in balance, I believe it would be better to turn our ports over to these Danish newspaper editors who believe in calling things what they are.

Not that Dubai doesn't have its charms. I once had a dinner there which featured all the caviar you could eat for $30.

That should remain its contribution to world peace.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you always been a racist, or is it a new thing? "Dubai Arabs", is that meant to strike fear into the hearts of your readers?

Either you support globalization, or you don't. There is absolutely no reason to think that Dubai ports, which already runs major ports allover the world, will be any different then any other port operation company in the world.

Your reaction is based PURELY on ethnic background, not on any knowledge of the port system, the global economy, or the way ports are protected, etc.

Basing an opion on a race and no other reason is the very definition of racism.

Blacks rioted in Los Angeles in 1991. Perhaps we should ban all blacks from the police force?

2/22/2006 11:28 AM  
Anonymous HBX said...

couldnt agree more

2/22/2006 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think Reich is racist? What are you, stupid? Seldom do I agree with Ken's point of view, but I could not agree more with him more on this issue. Think about a rational middle ground. Do you support globalization with a country that is not free? A country that's national religion has yet to denounce in any meaningful way the acts of murder committed under that banner? When acts of religious terror happen here, the nut job is denounced by the leaders of that religion, quickly captured by police, given a fair trial and put away so they can visit no more acts of violence on innocent people. How have all the Islamic nut jobs that have committed multiple acts of murder avoided capture? Because the societies they live in protect and hide them. Could you see that happening in this country on any meaningful level? Never. Globalization with nations that meet the minimum standards of a free society? Yes. Globalization with country’s that have a national religion and no freedom? Never.

2/24/2006 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Alexandra said...

I'm with Ken and the last poster. Beyond the security issues which Bush ran on and now contends don't really matter, money talks. Let's let our tax dollars be funneled to entities that support democracy and the freedoms we value, not repressive religious states that harbor terrorists. Let's see to it that the fox isn't in charge of the henhouse, and well-paid for the privilege, shall we?

2/25/2006 2:38 PM  
Blogger shelly sloan said...

These kinds of companies schedule shipments, book piers for boats and operate the port's business.

The United States Coast Guard provides basic security, supported by federal, state and local law enforcement.

The Customs people provide security in shipments and check what they can. The management company has no respnsibility for these security issues. None.

There is no change in the security arrangements in this proposed ownership transfer.

The only thing the Administration did wrong was to not inform the press, the congress and the American People adequately concerning the above. That is called "political tone-deafness".

Many of our other ports are managed by foreign companies, including one owned by the Communist Chinese government.

If they yanked all the contracts and insisted on solely American management, just which company do you think would win many of the contracts?

You guessed it! Halliburton.

Then watch the Democrats squeal...

2/25/2006 8:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home