This bothers me, because it just isn't right. But no one consulted me, and the consensus out there seems to be that it's okay to have a British company running our ports—as long as there aren't any sand niggers involved. Sigh. What a defeat for liberal ideals.

Now. Is there an American company out there that can even do this? Anyone? Bueller?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:34 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Are there any legislators out there with anything between their ears? Morons, indeed.

Lewis' signature line reminds me of Archie Bunker's complaint that it was hard to get "American food, like hamburgers and spaghetti."

Memo to the GOP: you're slow-dancing with Chuck Schumer. Isn't there some kind of clue in there that emotion has trumped analysis?

UPDATE: Sean points out this article, in which former CIA officer Larry Johnson expresses concerns about how existing DPW ports are being run:

"When you look at three of the top world ports for smuggling, counterfeit and contraband activity, those are, by my count, Hong Kong, Dubai and Panama. Dubai Ports World controls two of the three" Johnson said, referring to Dubai and Hong Kong.

Of course, my understanding is that the same command strucuture will remain in place at P&O: the only difference is that dark-skinned people who well might be Muslims will be sitting in a boardroom, half a world away, providing oversight to P&O.

And if there are two "wild West-style" ports being run at present by DPW, how many others are they running with very little contraband going through? (As I recall, there are 21 others.)

Kenton E. Kelly—aka Dennis the Peasant—wrote a scathing commentary in Reason Online about how the hysteria over the DPW port deal does not make us look very good among pro-Western factions in the Middle East. Not at all. We are pissing off people whose help we need badly.

The rough draft for that article ran as a blog post that later got pulled off his site (which is fair enough; after all, he'd sold the piece to Reason Online). But the original gets quoted a fair amount by The Lounsbury—another curmudgeon in Dennis' mold—right here, with some brilliant commentary and amplification.

(In general, the best information about the DPW Ports deal is being covered very well both at Dennis the Peasant and at Lounsbury's place.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.

Just as some people throw out the word "racist" too easily, others throw out the "how dare you call me a racist?" rejoinder as if it were a rhetorical molecule. Next thing you know, we're talking past each other again.

The UAE is our "friend," we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Yes, well, some friends are more equal than others. To instinctively trust a longtime, stalwart Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime, and Islamic extremism is not "Islamophobia." It's self-preservationist in a time of war.

We are at war, aren't we?

Yes. We are at war. That's why it's important for us to bank on our brains, and employ honest risk assessments, rather than using our "instincts."

The underlying argument—the one people aren't talking about much—has to do with how to spread classical liberalism, economic opportunity, and—yes, dammit—the best Western of values.

Is it better to partially engage, as we do with China, and co-opt potential opponents—and yet end up with dirty hands? Or do we apply the hardline stance we use in Cuba? Obviously, each situation is different: China is not Cuba, and neither is perfectly analogous to any Middle Eastern state.

But philosophically I lean toward engagement, as opposed to something that appears to flirt dangerously with "fuck you, you dirty Arab; come back when your entire society is perfect, and your track record squeaky clean (which, of course, ours in the U.S. is not)."

Most people who are intimately familiar with the UAE are supportive of this deal, and feel that the progress there is tremendous. But even if the UAE were as shady as Malkin asserts, isn't there an old saying about keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer?

Color me yet-to-be-convinced that this is an awful idea. Though I'm still listening.

(Via Hackbarth, who likewise is still saying, "show me the security risks.")

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:10 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.