« I'm not dead yet | Main | As-salaam aleikum »

Wednesday, 22 February 2006




This is the same problem I have with outsourcing: you are giving away the farm and endangering security and privacy.

I like local businesses. If I get taken I like the ability to have an up close and personal discussion with the owner.

I would have been upset if I had known the ports were operated by a British company, because they are not apt to be concerned or aware of American interests. This is not security.


I couldn't believe my ears this morning. And then... the president telling us today's version of "just trust me". The government, he assures us, has considered these questions carefully. Terrific... so tell us about those considerations. Nope, can't do it.

My guess is that it won't happen. Dennis Hastert AND Dick Durbin are against it. When was the last time they were on the same side about anything?


What preposterous nonsense.

Perhaps you had better start campaigning to wrestle back control of the management of airports from foreign companies then. Every major US international airport is managed by foreign companies, because efficient commercially viable US operators couldn’t be found. No doubt you and your vacuous kin will also regard that as a major threat to ‘security’.

Tell you what, maybe the rest of the world should expel all US commercial interests and get rid of all those 387 overseas US military bases without which US military activity ion the world would be crippled .. they do after all pose a far greater risk to international security than the commercial management contract for six US OWNED ports pose to US security.


For someone who obviously hasn't bothered to try to understand the situation to tell me my take on it is preposterous is, well, preposterous.

It's not just six ports. It's just the six port terminals that P&O is selling to DP World. Most of the other port terminals are also owned by foreign companies (some Chinese, some Danish, and apparently there was a Singaporean company in the bidding war for the six from P&O; and I'm sure there are others). Most people (myself included) were probably not aware of that fact until very recently, if at all. Now that we are aware, you can bet we're going to be working to change it.

U.S. military bases abroad are in no way comparable to port terminals on our soil, not to mention that even if our bases abroad do employ foreign workers, they are not the ones handling the sensitive information. By the very nature of the operation, the owner/operator of a port terminal must be aware of that port's security plans--and must, in fact, be putting that part that covers his operations together in the first place. That's the whole enchilada, right there. He can't plan to secure his part of the operation without knowing what the other parts are doing, and without knowing the parameters within which he must operate. At that point, we might as well consider our port security plans available for sale to the highest bidder on eBay.

If you don't think that's a huge security risk, well, then I don't know what to say. Except that you're either galactically clueless or so blinded by the opportunity to make a buck that you can't see anything beyond the bottom line.


sure, there are valid reasons for opposing the port deal (i'm opposed to it, after all). but it's also pretty clear that some people are opposing the deal because of racism. lots of people are against this deal because they don't want "arabs guarding our ports."

that may not be the reason you're opposed to the deal, but you can't pretend that anti-arab bias isn't entering into this for some people. hell, that's why so many wingnuts are against it


I don't dispute that there are some racists opposed to the deal, or that some people who oppose the deal are doing so partially or primarily for racist reasons. That is, as you say, 'noz, obvious.

What I object to is the tighty righties' insistence that the only reason anyone, and especially anyone on the left, opposes the ports deal is because of racial motives. That is as obviously wrong as the existence of racist motives in some people is obviously correct. The Repukes, however, are only pointing to that part of the equation that demonstrates what they already believe, or what they want the rest of the world to believe--that only racists oppose the port deal.

Of course, they conveniently forget the fact that their own rhetoric of terror from those "eeevul ay-rabs" over the last five and a half years probably has more than a little to do with a lot of the racist sentiments many people are expressing in response to the DP World deal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

E-mail me

  • musing85 {at} hotmail {dot} com


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005