Quite a few voices have called for the nationalization of our ports. A good idea, if you ask me.
Alas, if you mention that notion to the right-wing bloggers, they will sneer. "Of course liberals want the ports to be nationalized. After all, libbies are commies at heart. They want the government to run everything."
Better, the rightists say, to let market forces rule. If those firms from the United Arab Emirates want to pony up the dough, let 'em take over the ports. The market always knows best.
Ah...but...
Those firms are state-run.
So let's see if I have this straight: According to our rightist brethren, it is ideologically acceptable for a government-owned company to control our vulnerable ports -- just as long as the government in question is not the United States government.
Does that makes sense to you? Me neither.
Bush supporters love to warn us that "The caliphate is coming! The caliphate is coming!" In their eyes, the threat of Ay-rab invasion justifies all of Dubya's many sins. But how the hell are those apologists going to justify this turn of events?
Update: Quoting Daily Kos in this space seems a bit silly, since Cannonfire (believe it or not!) actually has some ways to go before it eclipses Kos' popularity. But these words by DarkSyde are pluperfect (if you don't mind a split infinitive or two):
The negative reaction among the right-wing faithful was an all too predictable, classic example of the monster turning on its creator: After years of pumping their fawning admirers full of terror and working as hard as they can to blur the distinction between regimes in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who did, the Bush Administration shouldn't be surprised that their supporters are unwilling or unable to objectively whip out the analytical razor-blade and expertly split hairs between a nation with direct links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and a company owned by that nation's government.Joshua Marshall points out that the law requires a 45-day investigation before a port is turned over to a company controlled by a foreign government. That law was not followed here.
Why the rush? Something is afoot, my friends...
12 comments:
Follow the money. How long did the British Company Own? Did they sell for a profit???? Do we know any shareholders who profited???
If we nationalize the ports, won't we see the Republican government break the longshoremens' union, like they did with the air traffic controllers?
Don't forget the Carlyle Group.
this may sound completely out in left field with the following hypothesis:
could it be that this country is ripe for a complete takeover by Saudi Arabia/Arab group? They own most of the oil, they own something like 10% of the USA's real assests.
The Bush regime stopped all air traffic after 9/11 to allow the Saudi Royals and the Bin Ladens time to jet out of Dodge. Bush seems beholden to the Saudis and the Saudi intelligence agency.
What's to stop them from starting up a complete takeover of this country, with Bush Jr, Cheney and Rumsfeld acting as the biggest pimps of the century?
That there is some secret neonazi group behind the Saudis, behind BushCo that has been wanting to takeover the US and then throw all the liberals and Jews in the newly built "detention camps" by Halliburton as a result of the $385 million contract just awarded them?
The laugh is, there probably *is* no compelling reason to deny Dubai the contract, if we're going to allow [any] private company to do this kind of work. Who would be better? Halliburton? The Dubai firm is at least accountable to a government, not shareholders or Dick Cheney.
On the other hand, it's great fun watching BushCo choke on the jingoism and xenophobia they've been cultivating for so long.
That said, the whole thing stinks: someone on the inside is on the take with this deal. Trust our tireless uncorruptible MSM to ferret out the truth....
To be clear, I have no clue why Bush is pushing so hard on this, it makes no sense, and that's reflected on both sides of the Congressional aisle. Further, at least one libertarian blog has raised questions as to why Bush is all of a suggen an unflinching supporter of free trade.
But, as a member of the "rightist brethren", I'd offer that I'm opposed to most forms of state-owned assets. In this case we're talking about a private enterprise in the U.S. being prevented from selling its ownership rights in an asset to a third-party that's not the U.S. government. And as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, I've fewer concerns on the tax burden of foreign governments. If they want to limit economic efficiencies and potential growth by favoring state-ownership, well, I don't vote there, so while I disagree with it, I'm not too concerned about it either, from an economic standpoint. And for those reasons, I have fewer qualms with a foreign state owning assets in the U.S. than I have with the U.S. gov't owning assets in the U.S.
I assume you'd like to see airports nationalized as well, as many foreign government-owned airlines also happen to own their own terminals at U.S. airports.
golly, so many facets to this story, where to begin?
first, anon 212, um, there are MANY reasons why dubai should NOT get this contract. such as, this is not a private company, but a state-owned company, as joe pointed out. such as, though uae is supposedly an ally, they have NOT cooperated with post-9/11 investigations into money sent from their banks to atta and others. such as, wmds are known to move through their ports to iran, korea, etc. such as, the deal includes military shipping, ours. such as, a number of folks apparently are profiting from this transaction, folks within the administration. all reasons to nix the deal no matter WHAT country is involved.
what's of greatest concern, though, is the fact that bush didn't even know about it. so who pushed it through? and why?
if joe's hunch that something is being planned is right, what might that be, such that it would expose the prez to so much overt culpability? he defends it, yet didn't even know about it, but if something happens, he's clearly toast.
now who would want to toast the prez in such an obvious frame-up kinda way? and who would be in a position to do so?
Sorry Ill, but I have to pause, when people cite Dubai's lack of cooperation in post-9/11 investigations.
The Bush Administration also refused to cooperate with the investigation, and the Bush family is at least as close to the Bin Ladens and other Saudi business interests (which finance terrorism) as anyone in the UAE.
If participation in terrorism disqualifies a country from holding a contract in the U.S., that's an excellent reason to privitize all U.S. government services, since the U.S. of A. is the world's preemminent terrorist state, both sponsor and perpetrator. Over the last 20+ years, it ranges from Jonas Savimbi, the Contras and the 1985 CIA Beruit car bombing (80+ dead), to Donald Rumsfeld's "shock and awe", with hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered.
That said, I'm not supporter of this contract, for the simple reason that if Bush wants it, there must be something wrong with it.
Finally, the post from our from friend Jed is hilarious. It apparently never occurred to him that some state-owned enterprises are actually profitable and that, according to his own free-market religion, he's in no position to criticize a result which the market has confirmed. Or does he think this company is offering its services to George Bush on a philanthropic basis?
As for market efficiencies -- they're clearly seen in the U.S. health care industry and private pension plans. Any more market successes in those realms, and we'll be bankrupt sooner rather than later.
anon 805, my position stands, and does not rely on the absence of logic in the administration's attempt to support its own illogical position. my position is logical, freestanding.
of course it is a bit silly to expect the administration to apply logic when they never have before (except to pander to the logic of their own ruthless drive to power), but that does not prohibit me from taking a logical position or from demanding it of them, nonetheless.
as for jed, well that was a hoot. forgive me, but i'm with anon on this. i tolerate all religions except that of capitalism, masquerading as "free" markets, which is the total absence of religion.
and yes, i would not only be fine with the nationalization of all ports, including airports (not just terminals), but with the airlines themselves. all areas of the public commonwealth, including the airwaves (tv and radio and the net), transportation, health, education, defense ....in short, all areas that "promote the general welfare" (that is a quote from the preamble to the constitution, in case you might have missed it) should be under the control of the people.
which, in case you might have missed it, is what the government IS in a democracy. NOT, as capitalists so wish us all to believe, some bogeyman who won't let the wealthy and wealthy wannabes gain and hoard still more wealth than they need at the expense of those who have nothing but need.
but back to the point, jed, which you completely missed by focusing on the business and tax aspects of the port question. THAT is not the point. the point is that THIS particular state of the uae has such a lousy and questionable history on matters related to terrorism (forgot to list that some of the 9/11 hijackers were from the uae), why would we want such folks controlling our ports of entry??
ah. joe, your thesis is reinforced here:
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN22395330
Joe, just to let you know, I read you a LOT more than I read DKos.
Anon is right - follow the money...
From Bloomberg:
Bloomberg data showed that on 6 September 2001, the Thursday before that black Tuesday, put-option volume in UAL stock was nearly 100 times higher than normal: 2,000 options versus 27 on the previous day.
On 6 and 7 September 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange handled 4,744 put options for United Airlines' stock, translating into 474,000 shares, compared with just 396 call options, or 39,600 shares. On a day that the put-to-call ratio would normally have been expected to be roughly 1:1 (no negative news stories about United had broken), it was instead 12:1.
On 10 September 2001, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected; only United and American were shorted in this fashion.
One can't help but wonder.
Post a Comment