Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Why is the American public so dumb?
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
This is concerning the flap about a Dubai based company taking over day-to-day operations at a number of US port terminals. It seems like all the media and every politician is making a big deal out of what is really a mole-hill, some facts:
First, the Dubai Ports World will be taking over operations at a number of terminals within several ports in the US, not whole ports, which tend to be owned by local government agencies (ei New York Port Authority).
Second, Ports World will be handling operations only, security is still managed by the Coast Guard and Customs.
Third, the Ports will continue to be staffed by Americans
Fourth, 50% of East coast, and 90% of West coast ports are all ready operated by foreign based companies. A good example, the Port of Newark, between New Jersey and New York has 6 terminals total, 2 are managed by Chinese firms, 2 by American firms, one by a Dutch firm and the final one by a joint venture between a Danish firm and British P&O, which was the company bought by Ports World.
We have grown so complacient and accepting of the media here, noone, in standard media outlets is mentioning any of these facts.
While we may not like how the Bush admin OKed Ports World to take over, it appears that the decision was made based on merit, not politics.
Sorry for the long rant, I just hate to see what was a basic business decision turn into political haymaking that distracts the public from real problems.
Jake
First, the Dubai Ports World will be taking over operations at a number of terminals within several ports in the US, not whole ports, which tend to be owned by local government agencies (ei New York Port Authority).
Second, Ports World will be handling operations only, security is still managed by the Coast Guard and Customs.
Third, the Ports will continue to be staffed by Americans
Fourth, 50% of East coast, and 90% of West coast ports are all ready operated by foreign based companies. A good example, the Port of Newark, between New Jersey and New York has 6 terminals total, 2 are managed by Chinese firms, 2 by American firms, one by a Dutch firm and the final one by a joint venture between a Danish firm and British P&O, which was the company bought by Ports World.
We have grown so complacient and accepting of the media here, noone, in standard media outlets is mentioning any of these facts.
While we may not like how the Bush admin OKed Ports World to take over, it appears that the decision was made based on merit, not politics.
Sorry for the long rant, I just hate to see what was a basic business decision turn into political haymaking that distracts the public from real problems.
Jake
Comments
All i could think was. Umm, Hello, WMD's?
[B]What i found funny, was an interview with Jeb Bush saying "I know that the president would NEVER go forward with something without having all the facts"
All i could think was. Umm, Hello, WMD's? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well he did have the facts, just they were the wrong ones...
:p
This Dubai Ports World thing is just one more example of how it works. I don't want to hand over our ports to terrorists!!1one
[B]The public is dumb everywhere.[/B][/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more with this. The number of times ignorant fucks here have screwed up projects that would have been very good for the country/city/local community...
[B]The public is dumb everywhere. How do you think this cartoon shit got out of hand? People in power have a vested interest in maintaining a docile and ignorant populace from which to gain legitimacy.
This Dubai Ports World thing is just one more example of how it works. I don't want to hand over our ports to terrorists!!1one [/B][/QUOTE]
Not all muslims are terrorists. If all muslims are terrorists, then you are buying lots of oil from terrorists, thats bad, giving them your money.
[B]This Dubai Ports World thing is just one more example of how it works. I don't want to hand over our ports to terrorists!!1one [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm really hope that statement is actually administered with a healthy dose of sarcaism.
Jake
[B]What i found funny, was an interview with Jeb Bush saying "I know that the president would NEVER go forward with something without having all the facts"
All i could think was. Umm, Hello, WMD's? [/B][/QUOTE]
"President Bush wasn't aware of the sale of six U.S. ports to an Arab company until after federal approval was granted and congressional opposition erupted over the deal, his spokesman said today."
Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html[/url]
:D
Jake
[B]I heard this today, and I also heard several talk radio host prattling on about how the president should have known. BS, I don't want the president getting bogged down with relatively minor business decisions, and that is exactly what this was, a business decision.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Uh, you misunderstand my post. One quote was from Jeb Bush, the other from Dubya. They "should" know each other given that they grew up together. Clearly they don't.
Take a read of this - the probe of this deal is getting more interesting by the day:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200366.html[/url]
"The Bush administration [b]secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations[/b] before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It [b]chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.[/b]"
This is wierd...seems like left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing?
I'm confused now - this seems bizzare after you read the details.
And further more, "The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration."
--
Personally I still have mixed feelings on this whole chaos. I question whether everything was done right, and whether ports are adaquately protected, but at the same time don't feel that discrimination against an arab country is right, and I fear what trying to forcibly end the deal might do to US-Arab relations now that it is concluded.
[B]"The Bush administration [b]secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations[/b] before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press."[/b][/quote]
Wouldn't that be a natural requirement of doing business in the US? Or are they requiring that the UAE cooperate in stuff the US does outside its borders?
[quote][b] It [b]chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.[/b]"[/b][/quote]
Such as? Were they important? And why were they skipped if they're routine?
[B]Not all muslims are terrorists. If all muslims are terrorists, then you are buying lots of oil from terrorists, thats bad, giving them your money. [/B][/QUOTE]
*Sings the "Pirates and Emperors" theme tune.*
[B]Wouldn't that be a natural requirement of doing business in the US? Or are they requiring that the UAE cooperate in stuff the US does outside its borders?
Such as? Were they important? And why were they skipped if they're routine? [/B][/QUOTE]
If you read the article, you see that what they didn't require (that normally they do with foreign investment) was directly related to what they did, and undermined their ability to enforce it:
"The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."
Jake
[B]I think the "!!1one" on the end is a good indicator. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm such an internet noob, that just looks like a typo to me...
Jake
One word: Twinkies. Who knows what kind of stuff in there has been polluting our... uh... thinking doohickey? *drools*
[B]I'm such an internet noob, that just looks like a typo to me...
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
You'd have to really slip to type "one" instead of "!". :D
What entails managing a seaport? Cleaning the toilets, making sure the light bill is paid, making sure the cranes are working and plowing the snow off. They seem able to do it while other companies go bankrupt!
Security is handled by Homeland Security and if we don't feel safe it is more because of the failures of Homeland Security then a seaport management company.
If they can prove Al-quida has agents in this company then let them prove it and convince me. But to sound like a bunch of bigots and not want the company simply because it is run and owned by Arab Muslims is bad and shows how hypocritical the the Repubicans and Democrats really are. We are not really for a free economy.
You're exactly correct. If we can occupy an Arab country and manage its affairs, there is no reason a stable arab nation can't manage 6 terminals in the US (these are only a very small portion of the total in the US).
Jake
[B]can't[/B][/QUOTE]
Jake
This leaves them vulnerable to another problem, the mainstream media. I used to think they had a dramatic liberal bias. Now, I think they are just biased towards whatever gives them the most advertising money. It is in their interest to distort whatever happens to get people panicky and eager to be told what to think.
Realistically, you are all correct, and the seaport issue is not at all worth worrying about. But the mob? Tell them that over network TV, and they might just turn their TV's off for a moment and think for themselves.
[B]This leaves them vulnerable to another problem, the mainstream media. I used to think they had a dramatic liberal bias. Now, I think they are just biased towards whatever gives them the most advertising money. It is in their interest to distort whatever happens to get people panicky and eager to be told what to think. [/B][/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more.