Cannon here: There are many more things to say about the port scandal; Dr. Elsewhere makes many pertinent points below. But one question has been nagging at me all day:
Suppose Cuba wanted to run one of our ports? How could we deny them a privilege granted to the UAE?
I really want to hear a rightist try to answer this one. As you know, I consider strained rationalization one of the higher forms of humor.
Please understand that I am no fan of Fidel. But what makes some horribly repressive Middle Eastern monarch -- a veritable FOO (Friend of Osama) -- a preferable business partner?
6 comments:
ah. would that cuba had that kind of cash, eh? they might, had they not been so brutally embargoed for all these many years.
and had there not been this embargo, castro's governing might resemble less that of a caged rat, and we'd instead be focused on his remarkable social feats, such as nearly 100% literacy, world-renowned universal health care, and astonishing resilience - especially in agriculture - after the soviet demise.
the world would do extremely well in many ways, not least of them social welfare and ecology, to respect and learn from what castro has done for his people.
I don't agree with any trade sanctions, tarriffs, quotas, etc., but the justification would be that one's a member of the WTO, the other isn't.
And yes, Castro's done such an amazing job for his people, who in turn are so pleased his governing that he has to maintain a security force to prevent them from leaving.
M. Jed, you're a hoot. So the WTO is the only thing standing between Fidel and the Port Authority of New York? Fine then, welcome Fidel into the WTO. His agricultural system is no more managed and regulated than our heavily subsidized one. Besides, unsavory regimes have never deterred the WTO. If there were moral requirements membership, or adherrence to international law was expected, the U.S. would be the first country to get kicked out.
Joseph, it doesn't look like anyone will take our bait, which just proves the point: the whole thing is arbitrary and prejudicial. Arabs are currently the bogeyman, that's all it amounts to. This is, after all, a country which routinely gives security jobs to high-school drop-outs and convicted criminals; and BushCo actually fought to keep these people employed at airports post 9/11.
So why worry about the UAE? Their hiring practices are probably better than Bush's. As for Cuba -- they'd probably do a great job, as long as they used Cubans and not minimum-wage Americans.
i'll take the bait, joe, and anon. it's a perfect point that dissolves their position.
sort of like what i heard on npr yesterday during an interview of a rabidly anto-gay person defending these new laws to deny gays the right to adopt children. the interviewer posed this great hypothetical: what if a woman has a child, is then widowed, then mother and child live for years with mother's female friend - their relations, sexual or otherwise, none of our business - and then the mother dies. by these laws, this child - who has been loved for years by this woman and her mother, is then sent to foster care instead of remaining with someone who knows and loves her.
the poor sap was utterly speechless. logic can win.
all that aside, may i humbly suggest everyone take a peak at the village voice piece i link to in my recent post. it helps clarify a great deal about why we're having these unsettling hunches about the ports and dubai and bush's insistence that we do this.
Their position is, in fact, rigorously consistent: go wherever crony capitalism takes you.
If somebody in BushCo thought he could make money off Cuba, we'd be hearing paens to Cuban agriculture and healthcare.
Ideology trumps everything with these guys. It's just not the ideology they admit to.
Bush sells out the national interest on a daily and hourly basis. Why would anyone in his right mind look to this guy for national security?
You'd think even "conservatives" worried about their hides would be concerned about Bush.... Then again, Georgie's doing a great job torturing goat-herders and Afghan taxi-drivers, so we're perfectly safe.
The WTO? Why the hell should the WTO enter into the discussion? This is about port safety.
And as for your disapraging comments about Cuba: Normally, I would agree. But under PRESENT circumstances, I will have to say that you are being very racist.
Post a Comment