Austin: No -- only sailors wear condoms, baby.
Vanessa: Not in the 90's, Austin.
Austin: Well they should, those filthy beggars. They go from port to port.
so this port deal with the UAE: a couple of things first. i've seen very little clarity from either side (not right-left but for-against) when discussing this transaction. on one side is david brooks, that monger of mediocrity, claiming that it's racism -- and that alone -- which makes many uneasy about this deal. on the other are countless politicians -- again from both sides -- claiming that this sale would unnecessarily jeopardize homeland security.
both ideas are crap. before i say more though, let me just state here that i am not a free-market, thatcherite supply-sider. i believe in free and FAIR trade, the exchange of goods and ideas that broadens our perspectives and helps promote human rights and democracy. replubican free trade policies in this country DO NOT DO ANY OF THIS, AND NEVER HAVE. so don't expect me to start licking the pages of the economist all of a sudden. financial times, maybe. NYT business: like a popsickle.
look, if you believe in a globalized marketplace like the one i described above, you can't all of a sudden tout your protectionist credentials to score political points. many many politicians on both sides of the aisle are doing this, and it makes them look ridiculous. martin o'malley has been the lone one with credibility on this issue, since he's been harping on port security in the baltimore area for years now. so i give him a pass, but just barely.
but really, if this were a country from south america, for instance, that wanted to run our ports, we wouldn't blink. we'd want to know, will this company continue to hire locally? if so, great. will they work extremely closely with the coast guard and homeland security, even help put pressure on the ridiculously stupid bush administration -- who has not cared a whit about port safety? if yes, then great.
that said, there ARE legitimate concerns regarding this deal. we can't pretend that it's happening in a vacuum, and that the only tools for evaluation here should be those we'd normally apply to any international transaction. the UAE has a spotty record when it comes to terrorism. our ports are the most vulnerable entry points to our national interior. but any rational opposition to this deal cannot come from a hatred of arabs or the dark-skinned Other -- which is not to say that there aren't a good number of republicans and a few democrats who object, in part, on racial grounds.
let me also say that i do not feel one iota of sadness for bush. he is reaping what he has so recklessly sewn over the past four and a half years. you CAN blame him, actually, for being surprised that there is more to being "strong" on national security than overblown rhetoric with very little action. right or wrong, there is action now.
if nothing else, this deal should be looked at under the mandatory 45-day review period that congress involves itself with. if, after heavy scrutiny, the deal is both legitimate and our safety concerns are met 100%, then it should go through.
this nationalist chest-thumping can freaking stop now.
both ideas are crap. before i say more though, let me just state here that i am not a free-market, thatcherite supply-sider. i believe in free and FAIR trade, the exchange of goods and ideas that broadens our perspectives and helps promote human rights and democracy. replubican free trade policies in this country DO NOT DO ANY OF THIS, AND NEVER HAVE. so don't expect me to start licking the pages of the economist all of a sudden. financial times, maybe. NYT business: like a popsickle.
look, if you believe in a globalized marketplace like the one i described above, you can't all of a sudden tout your protectionist credentials to score political points. many many politicians on both sides of the aisle are doing this, and it makes them look ridiculous. martin o'malley has been the lone one with credibility on this issue, since he's been harping on port security in the baltimore area for years now. so i give him a pass, but just barely.
but really, if this were a country from south america, for instance, that wanted to run our ports, we wouldn't blink. we'd want to know, will this company continue to hire locally? if so, great. will they work extremely closely with the coast guard and homeland security, even help put pressure on the ridiculously stupid bush administration -- who has not cared a whit about port safety? if yes, then great.
that said, there ARE legitimate concerns regarding this deal. we can't pretend that it's happening in a vacuum, and that the only tools for evaluation here should be those we'd normally apply to any international transaction. the UAE has a spotty record when it comes to terrorism. our ports are the most vulnerable entry points to our national interior. but any rational opposition to this deal cannot come from a hatred of arabs or the dark-skinned Other -- which is not to say that there aren't a good number of republicans and a few democrats who object, in part, on racial grounds.
let me also say that i do not feel one iota of sadness for bush. he is reaping what he has so recklessly sewn over the past four and a half years. you CAN blame him, actually, for being surprised that there is more to being "strong" on national security than overblown rhetoric with very little action. right or wrong, there is action now.
if nothing else, this deal should be looked at under the mandatory 45-day review period that congress involves itself with. if, after heavy scrutiny, the deal is both legitimate and our safety concerns are met 100%, then it should go through.
this nationalist chest-thumping can freaking stop now.
No comments:
Post a Comment